This page was last updated on October 5, 2016.
It’s not True of HRC in any Case; Carl Davidson (KD); Facebook; September 24, 2016.
You can learn more about BCR’s leftster management here. “Leftster” is the combination of leftist and gangster, inspired by the left-originated “bankster.”
Referring to a poster he shared about Hillary Clinton (HRC), Donald Trump (DT), and the Second Amendment, Carl Davidson (KD) of Beaver County Reds (BCR) wrote, “It’s not True of HRC in any Case, but for what it’s worth …” Rescuing Religion from Republicans (RRR) produced the poster.
RRR (aka The Politically Moderate Christian) is one-man band K. Scott Schaeffer (KSS) soliciting donations for his self-described “ministry” because he’s “been out of work since February 2014 due to Irlen’s Syndrome.” If you think KSS’ “ministry” is really about religion, I have a bridge to sell you. It’s just another lefty activist website.
Here’s the poster’s text:
“Trump: ‘Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment’ – NRA event 5/20/16
“Truth: Repealing a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote by Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states.
“The President gets no vote.
“The Supreme Court cannot repeal.
“Trump is counting on you not knowing that.”
The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Here’s what HRC and KSS are “counting on you not knowing.”
As you can see, the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or self-defense. The Second Amendment is about defending the country from its enemies, both foreign and domestic. During my research for this review, I learned the Second Amendment is not the only defense of the people. According to Federalist #46, written by James Madison, another defense is “the existence of subordinate governments.” Mr. Madison was our fourth President and is often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.”
Here’s an excerpt from Federalist #46 in which Mr. Madison compares “the Americans” to “the people of almost every other nation,” especially those “in the several kingdoms of Europe.”
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”
In the language of the day, “well regulated” meant something in good working order, not something under the control of the federal government. Given the content of the Bill of Rights and its protections for individuals, who in their right mind would interpret the Second Amendment to mean “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” really means there is no right for individuals “to keep and bear Arms?” I find it hard to believe the Founders would eliminate one of the things – an armed citizenry - that made the U.S. a reality, not a dream.
I don’t need DT to tell me HRC “wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment;” it’s been a goal of leftists for decades. DT didn’t say HRC would have the legal authority “to abolish the 2nd Amendment,” he said she “wants to.” Just look at some of the firearm ordinances in some of our large cities and you know where HRC wants to go.
KSS wrote, “Repealing a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote by Congress.” False. As KD and KSS know, this is only one of two ways to start the amendment process. The other approach requires two-thirds of the state legislatures to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” Regardless of the approach used to start the amendment process, Congress – just like the President and the Supreme Court - has no say about passage of the amendment. This provision exists because the Founders wanted to make sure the states and the people ultimately held power over all branches of the federal government.
It’s true there is no mechanism in the Constitution that allows “The Supreme Court (SC) … [to] repeal” portions of the Constitution the SC doesn’t like. What KD and KSS hope we don’t know is there’s nothing to stop the SC from “interpreting” the Constitution in ways completely unintended by the authors. That’s why Jim Crow laws were deemed constitutional for so long and how killing unborn babies for convenience became legal.
If leftists and King George III learned anything from the Revolutionary War, it’s to make sure citizens are unarmed. That’s why lefties have been claiming since forever the Second Amendment reference to “A well regulated Militia” means “the right … to keep and bear Arms” applies only to something like today’s National Guard. At the same time, leftists ignore the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” part of the amendment. As soon as there is five-member, anti-Second Amendment voting bloc on the SC, lefties will initiate a lawsuit that will eventually be argued before the SC. The SC will rule “A well regulated Militia” means National Guard and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” means only people in the National Guard have “the right to keep and bear Arms.” That’s how the SC could “repeal” the Second Amendment.
In Peace, Friendship, Community, Cooperation, and Solidarity. <g>
© 2004-2016 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.