Defending the Second Amendment

Helen Keller February 6, 2013 at 02:27 pm

The Second Amendment says: 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.
Does the right to "keep and bear arms" confer my neighborhood the right to set up a "well regulated militia"? If so, who is the regulator? Is it OK for me to keep a loaded AR-15 in my house? How about a bazooka? What about a nuclear warhead? Does Scalia's originalism require that my rightful firearm must be a musket? Are there any boundaries?

Jeffrey Sabatini February 6, 2013 at 11:27 pm

First, what date is the meeting? Obama and company is using the ban and attack on the 2nd Amendment to cloud and cover the fact the economy is still in the tank, unemployment is still bridging on 8% (12% for blacks), the price gas is +/- double from when BHO was elected, BHO's jobs commission that met only twice in 5 years has disbanded in disgrace... And everyone's paycheck just took a 12% or greater tax hit from ObamaCare, that was ONLY supposed to tax the so-called 1%.
So don't get tunnel vision my friends. The overall picture is much much bigger.

Jeffrey Sabatini February 7, 2013 at 12:14 am

Fair questions, and in order:
Q) Does the right to "keep and bear arms" confer my neighborhood the right to set up a "well regulated militia"? A) Yes, just like the people did post hurricanes Katrina, Irene and Sandy to protect themselves from looters & vermin who prey on the suffering. Q) If so, who is the regulator? A) Regulated in this case means there must be a viable chain of command and control. Q) Is it OK for me to keep a loaded AR-15 in my house? A)Yes, however if in CA it must be a CA-certified AR-15. Q) How about a bazooka? A) Sure, if you have the federal permit(s) for one. However, should the reason be an attack or invasion by another country, space aliens, etc. The rules pretty much go out the window. Q) What about a nuclear warhead? A) This comes under the heading of DUH! And intellectually impeaches you & your arguments. Q) Does Scalia's originalism require that my rightful firearm must be a musket? A) Other than your improper and inaccurate use of "originalism"... No, their is no mention of firearm form or function in the SCOTUS decision. If you read it you would know that. Q) Are there any boundaries? A) Big time! To begin with (in plain English), A state of emergency and the ability of-and-for traditional law enforcement and/or federalized military to police or protect civilians lives or property must exist. And to head off you next question... No, the situation in San Bernardino City has not met that level. Or should I say - not yet.

Amanda Frye February 7, 2013 at 12:37 am

The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. However, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of exactly what right the Second Amendment protects. The courts have already ruled that there is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Remember the Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Today how far do we escalate the arms race? Citizen has assault rifle and government brings a tank and bomb. Who would win that battle? The purpose of a gun is to kill pure and simple. Do we need more killers in America?

Amanda Frye February 7, 2013 at 07:04 am

Fuzzy questions for some? People need to act as adults and engage in mature discussions without resorting to puerile behavior so often used to control and silence others. Hopefully, the polarization can end and we can engage in a reasonable conversation on issues that have been so potentially damaging. Assault weapons can be used to kill but the lack of reasonable discourse can be just as destructive. Hope that respect can prevail throughout these dialogues. BTW-Noticed that the community codger posted more "assault weapon signs" along Cajon. Wonder if the Tea Party members would find these signs as offensive if posted at their meeting hall instead of being displayed near a school.

Wheeler Gannon February 7, 2013 at 02:17 pm

Mr. Sabatini responds:
<<Q) Does Scalia's originalism require that my rightful firearm must be a musket? A) Other than your improper and inaccurate use of "originalism"... No, their is no mention of firearm form or function in the SCOTUS decision. If you read it you would know that.>> Perhaps he should correct this: "In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation." These are Justice Scalia's written words opening his Opinion for the Court in DC v. Heller. (which designates the "SCOTUS" decision on which he appears to be relying) Perhaps Mr. Sabatini should castigate Mr. Scalia as well.

Wheeler Gannon February 7, 2013 at 02:43 pm

To reiterate:
Mr. Sabatini states: <<No, their is no mention of firearm form or function in the SCOTUS decision. If you read it you would know that.>> What I read were Mr. Scalia's words: "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." Furthermore Mr. Scalia parses "arms" ad nauseum, including bows and arrows, offense, defense, technology, etc. It becomes fairly clear that Mr. Sabitini has read neither that decision, nor the later McDonald v. City of Chicago. To paraphrase Mr. Sabatini, he "intellectually impeaches" himself by presenting himself as a cartoon character with no depth what-so-ever. In my humble estimation, Mr. Sabitini's modus operandi is "ready, fire, aim". It's the very risk to civil liberty that I worry about when folks such as he present themselves as experts on public safety and deadly weapons.

John F. Berry February 8, 2013 at 04:34 am

GREAT meeting tonight (even humorless libs would have enjoyed it)! Since you weren't there, he is my opening line as emcee: "It's so cold back East that even Obama is putting his hands in his own pockets." Should have been there!

Amanda Frye February 8, 2013 at 12:40 pm

Unarmed open minded free thinking moderates weren't invited to the Tea Party meeting.

Gary February 8, 2013 at 01:53 pm

That joke about politicians has been around for decades. Good to see there are still immature idiots passing it off as original thinking.

Gary February 8, 2013 at 07:28 pm

I liked the Tea Party sign that said, "Obama can keep his hand out of my pocket, I can stimulate myself." Much funnier joke.

John F. Berry February 9, 2013 at 04:08 am

Sorry Amanda, your nutty comments have gone too far, even for you: All of our meetings are free and open to the public. Always have, always will. We've even had some of the now-defunct occupiers at our meetings (they behaved themselves, so they are welcome to return). We have open mic nights. We welcome people as they enter and leave. We have won many converts in the community. (We had about 125 people last night). And I hate to say this, but even you are welcome to attend.

Jeffrey Sabatini February 10, 2013 at 01:40 am

Wheeler Gannon is using the tired and all to often applied high school debate tactic of taking quotes out of context and applying obscure definitions to support an illogical position or unpopular agenda. When co-applied with the other liberal rules of attack/kill the messenger, and if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S., Wheeler Gannon (if that's really his name) offers as much to the debate as MSNBC's shameful and repeated fraudulent re-editing to "create their version" of politically correct news.
Wheeler Gannon is of the ilk who supported the blind passing of ObamaCare so we could later find out what was really within the bill. The same folks who chided, insulted and all out attacked those of us who (correctly) warned how Obama's tax on the 1% would in fact hit middle and lower class paychecks hard. Wheeler Gannon and his pals at MSNBC who consider themselves the holy guardians and definers of what "truth" we-the-people should be allowed to see and hear have a big problem. We-the-people are much smarter than they give us credit for. And no matter how they twist, re-edit, re-define or apply their politically correct out of context quotes... The truth shall always prevail.

Jeffrey Sabatini February 10, 2013 at 03:02 am

I'm not (for my own reasons) a member of the Redlands Tea Party. However at every RTP event I've attended, those with opposing beliefs were well afforded the opportunity to respectfully voice their opinions. Far more than I've ever been at liberal events I can assure you. In fact, some were even given preferred seating up front to do so.
That said... These days there will likely be anarchists attending any such event with the sole goal of creating animosity to deter folks like you and the RTP from coming together to find common ground. The only question then becomes: Are YOU going to let them get away with it? I have the deepest respect for anyone with the courage to post under their real name and photo. So if you still have any reservations about attending an RTP event in the future, I would be honored to meet you there and support your having the opportunity to voice your opinions. You can contact me via Guy McCarthy.

Jeffrey Sabatini February 10, 2013 at 03:29 am

I may not be an RTP member John, but I believe you owe Amanda an apology. I disagree with her as well, but nothing she's stated has warranted such a response. That and such ire only works against bringing folks like Amanda into the fold, and serves only to fuel the anarchist's fires.
Along with the apology I respectfully suggest you personally offer Amanda reserved seating at your next meeting/event so she can experience the RTP for herself. Also, Amanda might feel much better knowing how all attendee's rifles, handguns and knives with over a three inch blade are required to be checked at the bar, prior to the call to order.

John F. Berry February 10, 2013 at 04:04 am

Jeffrey: I seldom read beyond the first few comments anymore because they spin off into orbit so fast. But your comments are thoughtful, so you deserve a response. Straight up: I used to think that one could deal with everyone on a thoughtful level. That's still true, even for most liberals, but unfortunately, there are the Amandas of the world who must be treated with verbal sledgehammers because that's all they understand. People like her mean us harm. They view the constitution -- especially the Second Amendment -- as an obstacle to their goal of socialist domination. When I was in Afghanistan in 2011, I finally had the time to read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky (Hillary Clinton studied with him; Barack Obama became a disciple). It was an eye-opener. In retrospect, I wish I had read it decades earlier. This book is the bible of the left and for bullies like Amanda. Their ultimate goal in engaging in debate is to force their opponents into positions of derision and ridicule. They are not interested in discourse as they pretend to be. They are only interested in discord. I ignore 90 percent of her comments because they're not worth my time. But unfortunately, we have to counter her nonsense because there are many people who never answer blogs but read them. And a nutty charge like hers could stand in the mind of a reader if it goes unanswered. Please come to our meetings. They're always the first Thursday of the month (We had 125 last week). Amanda is welcome as well.

John F. Berry February 10, 2013 at 04:08 am

One more: I will give Amanda credit that she has the guts to put her real picture and name online. She may be miswired, but at least she has the character to be who she really is online. I respect that. I have zero respect for the cowards who can't say who they really are. What would be fun is actually sitting down with Amanda and having coffee. We would never agree, and we have no common ground, but in the sense of a verbal boxing match, it would be fun.

Jeffrey Sabatini February 10, 2013 at 07:38 am

John call me optimistic, but I still believe folks like Amanda can be brought back into the light of the Constitution. They just need to be shown how it's not about a rifle's cosmetic configuration, it's really about the loss of freedom-of-choice and the erosion of civil rights. So why not leave the invitation open? After all, it's both the Conservative and Christian thing to do.

Amanda Frye February 10, 2013 at 12:25 pm

I'm game for a civil discussion over a cup of coffee.

Amanda Frye February 10, 2013 at 12:32 pm

Thanks for the reading recommendation. I just finished "The Founders and Finance- How Hamilton, Gallatin, and Other Immigrants Forged a New Economy" by Thomas K. McCraw. The book should be on the Tea Party's must read list. McCraw was a Pulitzer Prize winner for history and Strauss Professor of Business History Emeritus at Harvard Business School.

Wheeler Gannon February 10, 2013 at 05:31 pm

To understand the Second Amendment, I suggest reading The Federalist Papers. Note that they were signed anonymously by PUBLIUS.
Sabatini has "zero respect for the cowards who can't say who they really are." I revere Founders like Hamilton, Madison, and Jay (likely the authors, PUBLIUS) as patriots. Sabatini and I have a fundamentally different view of America, its beliefs, its ethos, its history, its present, and its future. If Mr. Sabatini actually read Supreme Court decisions, he'd realize that my quotes were exact, and on point. Perhaps he should read our Constitution as well. It's my opinion that Sabatini and his ilk are cartoon characters without substance. aa

Amanda Frye February 11, 2013 at 01:26 am

The Federalist Papers are important but it is essential to read the Anti-Federalist Papers for complete arguments involved in debates over the Constitution ratification. Understanding the politics at play over the ratification of the Constitution is essential to understanding the Second Amendment. The Anti-Federalist are credited with insisting on the inclusion of the Bill of Rights which contained Amendments I-X. The distrust of a strong central government taking away liberties is a theme that seems to resonate with the Tea Party members who should identify with the convictions of the Anti-Federalist arguments. I appreciate the Tea Party for raising concerns over the second amendment which forced me to pull “The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers” off my shelf for review causing me to dig a little deeper into Constitutional Law and read synopsis of case law arguments surrounding the Second Amendment. We should all find solace in the fact that judicial review is fundamental to the US system of government where the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judicial branch.

Jeffrey Sabatini February 11, 2013 at 10:36 am

Sorry pal, but there is nothing a nameless, faceless, cretin like yourself can do or say to offend me. Perhaps someday you might find the courage to climb out of your hole and face the world like a real man, using your real name and photo. But we are more likely to get a look at Obama's original birth certificate and college transcripts long before that ever happens. Until then, you simply matter not.

Jeffrey Sabatini February 11, 2013 at 11:13 am

See John, she's not that far off left as you think... Like I said, it's not the guns themselves, it's the attack on our freedom of choice. Consider this... If under Ocare a doctor asks a patient about gun ownership, can the patient refuse to answer without fear of losing care or services from that doctor and/or hospital? And, if the patient tells the doctor not to chart or record in any way the question being asked along with the refusal to answer... Is the doctor bound by HIPAA, and/or the good old 4th Amendment to comply? Or does Obama's executive orders and the ACA give the doctor cover, discrimination, or even a choice or in the matter? The gun ban/bill is a distraction to draw single issue voters attention away from the loss of civil rights. BTW, did you read how Bloomberg is now looking to ban all Styrofoam cups, plates, bowels and takeout containers from New York? No Soup For Him!!!