Shifting from Islam to the Constitution, here’s Matthew Bracken’s latest exam question:
12 thoughts on “Matt Bracken: Question of the Day #4”
Greetings Matt,
Well you know the contempt the modern Left has for the Constitution. Obama made it clear in his rant about “negative rights” vs. “positive rights,” and the I’ll be surprised if don’t soon see a movement to create a new “peoples” Constitution, much like you wrote about. Take care. VR-21.
Second Amendment. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that 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.”.
Seems to me the qualification in the 2nd amendment means that a state (not the federal government) may make reasonable restrictions on the possession of arms and the organization of armed groups. For example, a state may forbid the possession of machine guns by individuals. You may not agree with that, but I see it as within the Constitution.
On the other hand, armed, secretive, violent and organized groups like the Muslims of America, are legitimate targets of state regulation or sanction, as long as the proper legislation is enacted.
My reading of the amendment is that neither the states nor the federal government may impose restrictions. I realize that restrictions have been imposed and upheld by the court but that’s another issue.
Roy Copperud, a former journalism instructor at USC who wrote a number of books on English language usage, gave his brief analysis of the 2nd amendment. He analyzed it just on language and grammar alone staying clear of the political issues.
He concludes that just on the wording of the amendment the right is unconditional. Now, I realize that no one interpretation is in any way the final say so on the matter, but I did appreciate his step by step walk through of it.
I also got the feeling that he didn’t have an axe to grind either way but that’s only my gut reaction. Maybe I’m being overly sympathetic to his interpretation because it aligns with mine.
‘Well regulated’ as I recently learnt means functioning correctly based on how the phrase was used back then. So it basically means a functional militia which you can take to mean one which has the means to oppose a corrupt regime.
The primary requirement was armed men, or shall we say at least citizenry. People who kept weapons at home for the purpose of self defence and potential communal need.
The inference seems to be that an armed citizenry is essential to the existence of any functional militia and as such the right to arms must be maintained.
So yes, an individual having arms being in a militia is irrelevant, the individual having the arms so that a militia could be formed easily is the point.
” functional militia which you can take to mean one which has the means to oppose a corrupt regime.”
Absolutely wrong. The Constitutional Convention would never enact a provision leading to armed resistance against the government they created.
It is suicidal to talk about armed resistance to the US military and security agencies. The possession of guns was to enable the state to form self-defense units and to protect the citizens from outside threats or violence, like Indians, criminals, or rioting.
Generally, a government wishing to establish tyranny will covertly encourage violent groups like street gangs to create anarchy. As the government cannot openly support them, they can be successfully resisted with arms. So an arming of citizens is vital to stopping tyranny, but it has to be smart, not stupid.
Nothing prior to Rosa Parks is relevant. The only government institution justifiable is the GAO, to tabulate the exact wealth of non-Black persons and institutions, which is to be applied to Reparations.
It’s the only fair approach to atone for racism. And if the lightly-complected can be sent to North African slave markets in exchange for bullion, we’ll call it even.
None of the above. The correct answer is: The OIC
The OIC was in the original Preamble (“We the people of the OIC…”), secretly added by a young Thomas Jefferson after he read the Quran and recognized the value of Islam and the vast contribution it had made in the founding of America.
“OIC” was later removed by a more mature Thomas Jefferson when he had to go to war against the evil Barbary Pirates.
Later, Barack Hussein Obama tried to reinsert OIC into the Constitution but he was replaced by Donald Trump who outlawed pirates altogether.
No pirates??? But that will lead to more Global Warming.
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying that ordained pirates are not against climate change that may or may not be happening? What gives you the right to say that?
Dr Jordan Peterson: I’m a clinical FSM psychologist and no, that is not what I said.
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying you like spaghetti?!
Jordan Peterson: No, that is not what I said. I said that I’m a pirate.
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying you hate Trump.
Dr Jordan Peterson: No, that is not what I said. I said that President Donald Trump is outlawing pirates from a certain nasty religion.
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying that you hate Islam?
Dr Jordan Peterson: Yes.
Cathy Newman: Ha! Gotcha!
Excellent! I watched the Newman/Peterson interview again with my beloved; she thought Newman was working from a script written by others, so ill-prepared for his replies.
IMHO it states that ‘shall not be infringed’ is crystal clear and not subject to one’s interpretation.
Greetings Matt,
Well you know the contempt the modern Left has for the Constitution. Obama made it clear in his rant about “negative rights” vs. “positive rights,” and the I’ll be surprised if don’t soon see a movement to create a new “peoples” Constitution, much like you wrote about. Take care. VR-21.
#5: Second Amendment: 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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment
Second Amendment. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that 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.”.
Seems to me the qualification in the 2nd amendment means that a state (not the federal government) may make reasonable restrictions on the possession of arms and the organization of armed groups. For example, a state may forbid the possession of machine guns by individuals. You may not agree with that, but I see it as within the Constitution.
On the other hand, armed, secretive, violent and organized groups like the Muslims of America, are legitimate targets of state regulation or sanction, as long as the proper legislation is enacted.
My reading of the amendment is that neither the states nor the federal government may impose restrictions. I realize that restrictions have been imposed and upheld by the court but that’s another issue.
Roy Copperud, a former journalism instructor at USC who wrote a number of books on English language usage, gave his brief analysis of the 2nd amendment. He analyzed it just on language and grammar alone staying clear of the political issues.
He concludes that just on the wording of the amendment the right is unconditional. Now, I realize that no one interpretation is in any way the final say so on the matter, but I did appreciate his step by step walk through of it.
I also got the feeling that he didn’t have an axe to grind either way but that’s only my gut reaction. Maybe I’m being overly sympathetic to his interpretation because it aligns with mine.
http://firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
‘Well regulated’ as I recently learnt means functioning correctly based on how the phrase was used back then. So it basically means a functional militia which you can take to mean one which has the means to oppose a corrupt regime.
The primary requirement was armed men, or shall we say at least citizenry. People who kept weapons at home for the purpose of self defence and potential communal need.
The inference seems to be that an armed citizenry is essential to the existence of any functional militia and as such the right to arms must be maintained.
So yes, an individual having arms being in a militia is irrelevant, the individual having the arms so that a militia could be formed easily is the point.
” functional militia which you can take to mean one which has the means to oppose a corrupt regime.”
Absolutely wrong. The Constitutional Convention would never enact a provision leading to armed resistance against the government they created.
It is suicidal to talk about armed resistance to the US military and security agencies. The possession of guns was to enable the state to form self-defense units and to protect the citizens from outside threats or violence, like Indians, criminals, or rioting.
Generally, a government wishing to establish tyranny will covertly encourage violent groups like street gangs to create anarchy. As the government cannot openly support them, they can be successfully resisted with arms. So an arming of citizens is vital to stopping tyranny, but it has to be smart, not stupid.
Nothing prior to Rosa Parks is relevant. The only government institution justifiable is the GAO, to tabulate the exact wealth of non-Black persons and institutions, which is to be applied to Reparations.
It’s the only fair approach to atone for racism. And if the lightly-complected can be sent to North African slave markets in exchange for bullion, we’ll call it even.
None of the above. The correct answer is: The OIC
The OIC was in the original Preamble (“We the people of the OIC…”), secretly added by a young Thomas Jefferson after he read the Quran and recognized the value of Islam and the vast contribution it had made in the founding of America.
“OIC” was later removed by a more mature Thomas Jefferson when he had to go to war against the evil Barbary Pirates.
Later, Barack Hussein Obama tried to reinsert OIC into the Constitution but he was replaced by Donald Trump who outlawed pirates altogether.
No pirates??? But that will lead to more Global Warming.
https://www.venganza.org/2008/04/pirates-temperature/
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying that ordained pirates are not against climate change that may or may not be happening? What gives you the right to say that?
Dr Jordan Peterson: I’m a clinical FSM psychologist and no, that is not what I said.
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying you like spaghetti?!
Jordan Peterson: No, that is not what I said. I said that I’m a pirate.
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying you hate Trump.
Dr Jordan Peterson: No, that is not what I said. I said that President Donald Trump is outlawing pirates from a certain nasty religion.
Cathy Newman: So you’re saying that you hate Islam?
Dr Jordan Peterson: Yes.
Cathy Newman: Ha! Gotcha!
Excellent! I watched the Newman/Peterson interview again with my beloved; she thought Newman was working from a script written by others, so ill-prepared for his replies.
IMHO it states that ‘shall not be infringed’ is crystal clear and not subject to one’s interpretation.