It’s Not About Hunting

explains Andrew Klavan:

As with the death penalty, the argument of the progressives is that times and people have changed. Our democratic institutions and traditions are now engraved upon our hearts, they say, and no longer require the elaborate constitutional safeguards the founders provided for us. Civilized by the years, our leaders no longer pose the threat of tyranny, and guns only serve to give the anarchic power of death to individual lunatics and rednecks when it should be reserved to the state.

The conservative argument is, to put it succinctly: “Not so much.” Once again, we aggravating creatures of the right can’t help pointing out that human nature has changed neither a jot nor a tittle since we hightailed it out of Eden. Those who in ancient days sought to rule us in the name of our own good are still among us, and the only thing that keeps them on their side of the Rubicon is, in the words of that great patriot Neo from The Matrix: “Guns. Lots of guns.”

We have to keep hammering this point home, particularly to the morons like Piers Morgan.

22 thoughts on “It’s Not About Hunting

  1. Chris Gerrib

    Except we don’t have a right to organize a home militia. The guys who started the Whiskey Rebellion found that out when George Washington showed up. Instead, we are all members of THE militia – a force Congress is charged with “organizing, arming, and disciplining” (Article 1, Section 8).

    What Klavan is claiming is a right for any individual gun owner to veto any law the gun owner doesn’t like. I mean, who decides what “unacceptable tyranny” is?

    I did an analysis at my site. Basically, the Founders wanted one effective militia and didn’t want Congress to selectively disarm people.

    1. wodun

      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
      George Mason

      With Democrats like OWS always trying to blow things and frequently advocating for the execution of political opponents, do you really wonder why so many people are against gun control? When unions are burning down buildings and beating people, do you really wonder why some people are against gun control? The same group of people who fetishized the assassination of Bush are now waxing poetic about violence.

  2. NavyNuc

    Those participating in the Whiskey Rebellion were no more a militia than the mobs who attacked federal agents during Prohibition were.

  3. Chris Gerrib

    M Puckett – yes there is. Klavan seems to think he can create his own militia.

    NavyNuc – under Klavan’s theory, those mobs could consider themselves militia.

  4. M Puckett

    Chris, there is nothing preventing members of the unorganized militia from training together and otherwise preparing short of conspiracy to do somethign stupid.

    It is the same 1st amendment right to freedom to associate with others that form the constutional basis for unions.

      1. M Puckett

        Chris, what is this straw militia of whence you speak? FOR ONCE DON’T READ MORE INTO WHAT I WROTHE THAN I ACTUALLY WROTE!!!
        Note I said unorganized, inferring a lack of an organized chain of command.

        Read Presser. That seems to be the defining characteristic of an organized militia.

          1. M Puckett

            The thinking is it would organize itself in time of need or be incorporated into the organized militia.

            Likely the Sheriff would form the nucleus of the local orginizations.

          2. Chris Gerrib

            Likely the Sheriff – we’re back to Presser. Unless the state delegates to the sheriff the power to organize a militia, it’s unconstitutional.

            There really is no constitutional way to violently oppose the government. Which makes sense – one of the factors of the constitutional convention was Shay’s Rebellion.

          3. Chris Gerrib

            (Wishing there was an “edit” button):

            To add to the comment on Shay’s Rebellion: The Founders were against tyranny and for freedom. They were also concerned about “mob rule,” whether that mob was armed or not.

            Faced with this tension, they decided to create democratic institutions, hoping that would defuse problems before the mob got out of hand. They did not write in a legal way to use force to overthrow the government.

            Having just fought a revolution, they knew revolt was possible, but they saw no reason to legalize it. If it needed to happen, it would, laws or no.

          4. George Turner

            My lawful milita commander only gets paid $8,000 a year and campaigned on eliminating his own job, since the only other duties he has are swearing in the sheriffs and the security guards at the airport.

          5. George Turner

            And actually, if there’s no Constitutional way to fight the government, it means Lincoln was in charge of arming, equipping, and commanding both sides in the Civil War.

  5. M Puckett

    “Unless the state delegates to the sheriff the power to organize a militia, it’s unconstitutional.”

    The Sheriff already has the authority to raise a posse.

    Essentially, that is a local militia.

  6. Bilwick

    “Our democratic institutions and traditions are now engraved upon our hearts, they [the State-shtuppers] say. . . ” Apparently not the traditions of individual liberty and suspicion of Big Brother. Witness the comments of Chris Gerrib.

  7. wodun

    Chris, what do you think about the spirited young Democrat arrested for planning to assassinate Scott Walker?

    We have one party who’s members consistently use violence for political purposes and this same party is trying to disarm the populace.

      1. wodun

        It is great that you think that but what are Democrats going to do about the epidemic of violence coming out of the Democrat party? Why is it that Democrats who use violence are celebrated and honored?

        Maybe the Democrats should address the violence of their activists before they start banning guns on moral grounds.

        And I hope you can understand why people want to keep their guns when one party continually uses violence for political gain and is never held accountable for it.

          1. wodun

            There was the OWS guy busted a couple weeks back with “assault” rifles and bombs. Then there were the other OWS guys in Clevland arrested for trying to blow up a bridge. Then there is the OWS in general which was centered around using verbal and physical violence to provoke a police reaction.

            And all the rapes.

            There was the union mob attack against Steven Crowder in MI. During this attack they not only tried to beat Crowder but brandished knives, collapsed a tent, and stomped on it while people were inside. And there have been a lot of cases of arson by union members targeting non union employers and work sites.

            This is just the stuff over the last two months.

            Hardly a month goes by without some example of Democrats using violence for political gain. The ELF, Greenpeace, Anarchists all use violence. There is even a TV show dedicated to eco terrorism on the high seas.

            Then there is the Pentagon shooter, the Discovery building shooter, the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building, and many other examples over the last decade.

            We could even talk about violence used by pro-abortion activists, including trying to set people on fire a couple months back.

            I am not surprised you over look all these acts of political violence but don’t try and claim it isn’t happening. It is not only an epidemic but is endemic of the Democrat party.

  8. Josh Reiter

    Sorry Chris, but I think I’ll listen to Glenn Reynolds take on the 2nd amendment rather than your own since he is, well, an actual constitutional law professor at the University of Tennessee; thus making it a valid appeal to authority.

    The 2nd amendment was added to the Bill of Rights because the Anti-Federalist were concerned that the Constitution gave to much authority to the Federal government to take direct control of militias. The amendment was intended to affirm a right to form a counter balancing force against an overbearing standing army. To say that the 2nd amendment only extends to the states rights to form a state militia is in conflict with Article I section 8 and 10 since the federal government can call out a state militia under direct federal control. You can’t be much a counter balancing force when a the whim of the federal government it can call out the militia and put them on a boat to Timbuktu — effectively disarming the people. Also because of the Supreme Court decisions like Brown v Board of Education and the little thing called the Civil War we now know in reality the States don’t have the full authority to bypass federal gun control measures. To say otherwise would mean that states have the inalienable right to require all able bodied men to arm themselves with fully automatic military grade arms, bayonets, and suppressors; despite federal gun control restrictions to the contrary. Furthermore, state militias have been reformed into the National Guard who members take oaths to the government of the United States and receive nearly all the funding from the federal government. So again, The States in fact have no counter balancing force to the standing army of the United States. The articles of the pre-amendment Constitution and the National Guard place all of the State controlled forced under Federal control. So, we can only assume then that the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights was to affirm an individuals right to bear arms and for free peoples to self organize into a militia to serve as that counter balancing force.

Comments are closed.