Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Charlie T Waite

Rebuttal to gun-grabber talking points regarding the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

I did some research to provide everyone with some rebuttal talking points when dealing with those who think the 2nd Amendment is out dated or should be removed.  This might help some of you when discussing our 2nd Amendment Rights with Anti-Gunners.  There has been a lot of talking points that the opposition have used in an attempt to rationalize passing more legislation that would further restrict our 2nd Amendment rights. The following are some of those talking points followed by quotes from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on his ruling opinion of D.C. v. Heller that reaffirmed our God given-Constitutionally enforced right to bear arms for protection of ourselves and our loved ones. Please take the time to read it and share with others.  It is a bit of a read but well worth it.   Just remember 2 things when discussing with these individuals; 1) Always be nice to them no matter what they say to you.  2) Always leave them with a way out e.g. allow them the opportunity to do some research on their own.

 

~ Charlie 

 

 

1. The 2nd Amendment only applied to militias. 

 

“Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to ‘keep’ arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase ‘keep arms’ has a militia-related connotation. This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to ‘file complaints’ with federal agencies, the phrase ‘file complaints’ has an employment-related connotation. ‘Keep arms’ was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen AND EVERYONE ELSE.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

 

“The Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

“In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defense of themselves and the state’ or ‘bear arms in defense of himself and the state’. It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ DID NOT REFER ONLY to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

“There seems to us NO DOUBT, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

 

2. The 2nd Amendment only applied to muskets. 

 

“It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense. It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. WE DO NOT interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie (latin for “on its face), to ALL INSTRUMENTS that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

3. The 2nd Amendment should be reworded; it’s not applicable to current times. 

 

“Putting all these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has ALWAYS BEEN WIDELY UNDERSTOOD that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified A PRE-EXISITING RIGHT. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’. As we said in United States v Cruikshank, this is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is NOT DEBATABLE is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

4. "Well regulated” means our government can restrict you from owning guns. 

 

“The adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

5. The government doesn’t want your guns. Besides the 2nd Amendment wasn’t written for protection against tyranny. You’re just paranoid. 

 

“There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be ‘necessary to the security of a free state’. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

“History showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.”

 

-Supreme Court Justice Scalia

 

Finally there is a beautifully written ruling opinion from the Georgia Supreme Court case of Nunn v. Georgia (1846) that spells it out for all those that need extra instruction:

 

“The right of the whole people, old and young, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia , shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.