Friday, February 17, 2012

Santorum says, quite rightly, that “the Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment!” Collectivist citizen disarmament advocate wets pants.

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." -- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention (1787).
Responding to this report which included this paragraph . . .
Santorum was then asked if the Second Amendment is only for hunting and sports, to which he responded emphatically, “the Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment!” His own family possesses firearms, he says, both for hunting and handguns for personal protection. He cautioned that if Obama is reelected, the Supreme Court’s Heller Decision, which holds that individuals have a right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, will be in jeopardy. It is imperative, he says, that judicial appointments over the next several years be only constitutional conservatives, or we will be at great risk of losing our Second Amendment rights. Heller, he says was a 5-4 decision.
Ian Millhiser, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Editor of ThinkProgress Justice, has wet his pants with the breathless announcement, "Santorum: ‘The Second Amendment Is There To Protect the First Amendment!’"
Horrors! He writes:
In reality, of course, the judiciary exists to protect the First Amendment. Santorum’s apparent belief that Second Amendment remedies should fulfill this purpose suggests a vigilante approach that is difficult to square with the rule of law. If each citizen can both decide for themselves what the First Amendment means and then use their personal arsenal to enforce it, the inevitable result is chaos.
Moreover, it is unclear just what kind of “First Amendment” violations Santorum believes justify armed resistance to the United States government.
The collectivist Democrats and their media harpies will be jumping on this to Santorum's detriment, and I hope he has the grit to withstand the assault without a retraction.
So, "the judiciary exists to protect the First Amendment." True, as far as it goes. But the natural, God-given rights to liberty and property expressed in the Declaration of Independence and merely codified in the Constitution are not subject to nullification by any black-robed bandit, or a cabal of black-robed bandits. As for "what kind of “First Amendment” violations . . . justify armed resistance to the United States government" -- well, dependent upon the actions of the Congress and the Supreme Court later this year, we might just find that out. Hide and watch, Millhiser. Hide and watch.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

One need only look to the correspondences of the founders to divine their intentions. Their words make their thoughts and intentions absolutely clear. They intended to be free and knew that only an armed man can be free. They knew as well that only force and the threat of it's use would secure those freedoms and that liberty.

The leftists want to rule and must gain control of individual liberties, the use of force and the right and abilities to dissent in public forum using truth and facts not provided by their regime. Their lies will be found out and exposed but if no one is allowed to hear of it, it cannot be corrected or changed but even those measures eventually fail. It is then that arms become a paramount issue because sooner or later the people will see the truth and if they are armed, they will use those arms to remove that government and those people from power.

Our leftists are comfortable with and will embrace a Soviet styled system because it secures their power and privilege over the people as well as a superior lifestyle. They will ride in heated Zils while the people walk in the snow dressed in rags. This they will blame on capitalism, and every so often shoot several people who can be successfully blamed in their courts, for actions they never took and even thoughts they never had. They will of course have confessed to everything as they always do when enough "pressure" is applied. Their media will present this in an acceptable manner which promotes the regime and ideology and protects the state regime.

This, while literally everyone knows the truth but will not, cannot, dare not speak it. Which is how the whole thing got started in the first place.

Anonymous said...

They cant take, what they didnt give.

We the people Gave them our bill of rights..not the other way around

if it comes to this..Civil Disobediance will be the order of the day

Anonymous said...

Ya gotta love the libs. They really haven't a clue. Santorum just kicked them in the balls and they don't realize it. And the answer to the schumks answer regarding 'which part of the first ammendment' is ANY!

Anonymous said...

Santorum’s apparent belief that Second Amendment remedies should fulfill this purpose [protecting the First Amendment] suggests a vigilante approach that is difficult to square with the rule of law. If each citizen can both decide for themselves what the First Amendment means and then use their personal arsenal to enforce it, the inevitable result is chaos.--Ian Millhiser

When "each citizen can...decide for themselves (sic) what the First Amendment means" you have liberty. When citizens "use their personal arsenal to enforce" their liberties, you have liberty with teeth. ;^)

As to what a "vigilante" is, Gary North at LewRockwell.com offers this insight (although in a slightly different context) "In the American West, an unofficial assembly of private citizens known as vigilantes would gather together to exact vengeance against some suspected evil-doer who had the backing of the local politicians and who could not be prosecuted."

http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1087.html

In short, Santorum believes citizens can be trusted to look to their own remedies when the civil magistrate refuses to redress their grievances, which sounds like an American ideal to me.

MALTHUS

Note to MVB: Word verification is asking me to type in two words, one of which is represented by Hebrew characters. Have Threepers joined ranks with the Tel-Aviv militia?!

theirritablearchitect said...

Funny, as Millhiser wouldn't seem to know what "Rule of Law," means, no matter how long and arduously he studied the subject.

Can't fix stupid.

Anonymous said...

Not that Rick Santorum is a Constitutionalist ...

[He is NOT:
Rick Santorum On Small Government (spread far and wide)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU]

... but he is absolutely right on this point.

A Constitution, by definition, makes the people the final court of arbitration pertaining to its interpretation.

The Supreme Court exists to keep track of the myriad of laws written, and to be the final say for those charged with doing the work of government; But all of government is under oath to the Constitution, which was designed to protect the people from encroachments of government on their inalienable rights - including from unConstitutional rulings by the Supreme Court.

Our Founders wrote about the scope of legislative and judicial authority in:

Federalist Papers #78

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

Our Founders also explained the proper method of legal interpretation. It is not based on legalese or stare decisis, but on common logic: If the logic behind a given interpretation isn't sound, then it cannot be a lawful interpretation:

Federalist Papers #83

"The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws."

In Federalist Papers #46, our Founders noted that since everyone was armed, they had a way to fight the federal government if they formed an army (National Guard in place of state militias?) to violate the rights of the people.

And in Federalist Papers #28, our Founders noted that the only recourse left, if the people were betrayed by their representatives, was "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government";

It goes on to say of encroachments at the state level: "In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Longbow said...

Quote from M. Millhiser, "Santorum’s apparent belief that Second Amendment remedies should fulfill this purpose suggests a vigilante approach that is difficult to square with the rule of (oppressive) law."

That "oppressive" part was mine. But it seems to me he is saying, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Jeepers, you don't say!

AJ said...

That's just about the first thing Frothy has said that doesn't piss me off. Even when he parrots Ron Paul, it pisses me off.

Anonymous said...

The Second Amendment may need some defending.

"The UN To Use Appropriate and Gradual Force In Gun Confiscation"

http://armedselfdefense.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Santorum should include two words in his next answer to that kind of idiot: " . . . among others".

Millhiser should go to the graves of Sam and Vicky Weaver and try to explain his position to them.

Anonymous said...

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ~Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
~Thomas Jefferson

I may have to vote for that man.

Chase said...

"Moreover, it is unclear just what kind of 'First Amendment' violations [any 2nd Amendment supporter] believes justify armed resistance to the United States government."

They ask this one all the time, but it's really not so perplexing. There's a simple and reliable test:

If you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore, grab your rifle and go outside. Then, LOOK AROUND. If you're the only lunatic yelling and waving a rifle, GO BACK INSIDE. It's not time yet.

Tugboat1988 said...

That question is, and has always been, a side-track to a dead end. It's not even a question that need be asked, or responded to, in the debate of personal gun ownership. The Second Amendment is a LAW set down in regulation of the federal government that it shall not infringe upon the right of a Citizen to keep and bear arms. Knowing that ends all the silly debate. But it does make clear that a federal government willing to infringe is maverick and willing to commit high crimes as does any tyranny.
Tugboat

Jhn1 said...

My belief is similar, although not exact.
I believe that the Bill of Rights stands like a tripod, in that we need all the legs standing together to support US.
If you have a Second Amendment, and a First Amendment, how much good does it do if there is a squad occupying your home and not allowing your whole family to be gone at any time?
Durham Prosecutor Mike Nifong was doing well in his framing of the Duke Lacrosse players until they got to question the accusers and related bits.
We need all the bill of rights, and fools that throw some under the bus will end up negating they protections for all Americans eventually.

Anonymous said...

"We need all the bill of rights, and fools that throw some under the bus will end up negating they protections for all Americans eventually."

Roger that, squared and cubed!

"Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot" -- Joni Mitchel

It's been said before that its always easier to maintain what you have as opposed to trying to re-create it from scratch. I am reminded of an incident from my teen-aged years. I was on an Air Force Reserve C-119 "Flying Boxcar" with my CAPC squadron en-route to summer encampment at Tyndall AFB when I felt something drop in my lap. A quick look-see revealed a small roundish aluminum object. Out of curiosity, I showed it the the cargo master whereupon he pointed to daylight shining through the skin of the aircraft through the hole vacated by a missing rivet. A quick look around revealed that there were more than one missing rivet. I asked him how many we could lose before the plane crashed. In reponse I got a wink and "Depends on which ones, Kid!"

We are always hearing from someone who is of the opinion that some parts of The Bill of Rights are obsolete. The Second, Third, and Tenth Amendments being the most common examples. They need to be reminded that Madison, in an attempt to get his proposed constitution adopted, collected the most often voiced objections and, against his better judgement, offered them as proposed amendments. The list was winnowed down from 20 or so to a final group which were debated at some length. Ten saw final passage and were eventually ratified. Note that the founders of our republic thought that every one of those ten were essential to the protection of individual liberties from encroachment by the state.

We all should regard them as the essential rivets we cannot afford to lose.