Not to insult your intelligence, but the second amendment comes right after the first amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. The founding fathers believed that the right to bear arms was necessary to protect first amendment freedoms. They believed citizens possessed a right of protection of those rights from the government. Without the right to bear arms, the government could overstep its constitutional boundaries and threaten freedom of speech, religion, the press, redress of grievances, and assembly.
History
The Framers experienced tyranny firsthand and knew tyrants disarmed militias to eliminate them. They needed an armed citizen militia to resist an oppressive military if constitutional order broke down. Catholic rulers in England prohibited their Protestant subjects from owning firearms. In 1689, the English Bill of Rights corrected that injustice. In Heller v. District of Columbia (2008), the Supreme Court then ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own guns, rather than the collective right of a state to have a militia. Yale Constitutional legal scholar, Akhil Reed Amar, wrote in a 2001 Utah Law Review article:
Consider once again the First Amendment. The core idea underlying the Founders’ Freedom of Speech Clause was a right to engage in political expression, especially anti-government speech. Intratextual and historical analysis confirms that this was the core idea: the phrase “freedom of speech” derives from the English Bill of Rights protecting “freedom of speech, and debates … in parliament. “Parliament,” from the French parler, “to speak,” is a parley place, a speaking spot. But Parliament is not quite a spot for any and all utterances: the core concept here is political expression.
Voting itself is a powerful individual expression. When citizens believe the government is nullifying their vote, they might protest. When they begin to think government is taking away their vote, the government might expect a forceful response.
Protection Against Tyranny
The First Amendment is often viewed as fundamental to a democratic society because it ensures that citizens can express their opinions and dissent against government actions without fear of retribution. This principle is essential for fostering a healthy political discourse. Following this foundational principle, the Second Amendment addressed concerns about self-defense and protection against tyranny. The framers believed that an armed populace could serve as a check against potential government overreach or oppression.
Philosophers like John Locke emphasized natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. These ideas influenced American thought during the founding era; thus, protecting individual rights became paramount in drafting both amendments. While both amendments protect individual rights, they do so in different realms. The First Amendment ensures that citizens can freely express their thoughts and assemble to advocate for their beliefs. The Second Amendment provides a means for individuals to defend those rights physically if necessary. In this sense, one could argue that the Second Amendment serves as a safeguard for the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Both first and second amendments emerged from a backdrop where individuals had recently fought against British rule. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware that oppressive governments could stifle individual rights through censorship (First Amendment) or disarmament (Second Amendment). When only one side of a political divide has the firearms, this quells or quenches the free expression on the other. Other threats can also stifle free speech. Without the possibility of citizens arising with arms, the police power of the government can enforce its own approved speech to the elimination of its citizens.
Case Study of January 6
I would ask that we consider January 6, 2001 as a case study of first amendment rights. For the last seventy-five years one political party participated in political speech accompanied with violence in the United States, the Democrat Party. Hundreds of examples exist and almost every one of them come from the left, including the BLM riots of 2020 with at least 25 killed that Summer. All of this resulted in thousands of deaths and multiple billions of dollars in damage. Anyone reading here knows that violent protests and rioting are the unique domain of the Democrats, the left, and their supporters. Citizens have tolerated these for decades. Then comes January 6.
January 6 was an outlier for right wing protests. The primary motivating factor was the perception of interference in the 2020 presidential election. Conservative authors have written numerous entire books and dozens of published articles outlining and giving evidence for the interference with the 2020 election by advocates of the Democrat Party. Four Trump supporters alone died that day, one unarmed Ashli Babbit, who was shot and killed. The crowd that day saw the election interference as a greater violation than the vitriol and hostility of its demonstration.
The United States government understands the threat of violence against it posed by the existence of the second amendment. Defense of liberty goes two ways.
You are now a political blog? Just way the world needs: another bitter political hack…
Figures, only a woman would make a comment such as that.
Tom
Thanks Marla.
I would argue that the January 6 riot was not conservative, because it is not conservative to claim that the Constitution can be reinterpreted so that a ceremonial function that the Vice President has can be changed into him having authority to reject election results. The people who attacked the Capitol and injured hundreds of police officers were not conservative, not pro-liberty, and not pro-Constitution.
Mr. Ross,
Is there ever a time when a “ceremonial function” should be questioned? Could the president of the Senate delay the electoral count process to allow the states (especially if they were asking for a few days to reassess the results), if there were obvious evidence of fraud in the 2020 election?
Another way to ask the question: Is there ever a time when a lower authority should resist the order of a higher authority if the order would perpetuate evil or fraud?
Chris
I’m speaking without the facts in front of me, but I believe that there was a delay or rejection of certification for a period of time when JFK was elected. There was confusion concerning the results from Hawaii.
Someone should fact check me on this.
Concerning the post, I agree that Jan 6 looked more like a mob of people who had been abused one too many times, and lost their collective cool. It was an ourlier, which is used by the enemies of liberty (and some of our friends) to beat us mercilessly. I wish it had not happened and it made us look bad. It pales in comparison to the George Floyd riots.
The first shots of the Revolutionary War at Lexington / Concord probably looked like a rabble of troublemakers gone rogue. A city militia refusing to disarm, harassing the British all the way back to Boston, country boys pouring in from surrounding areas to take potshots at passing troups?! Sounds positively redneck, but that is how it started.
The left will demand the disarmament of the citizenry sooner or later. The answer now as then will be NO.
These are dreadful times in our nation.
Jim,
Yeah, three elections delayed certification: 1800, 1876, and 2000. Not the JFK one. The Biden election wasn’t delayed. Clean sailing comparably.
I agree with you on Jan 6, totally. I think a vast majority of these people started out meaning well, and still a majority continued meaning well. They were not misinformed. There were huge numbers of irregularities that swung the election. Everyone should have been concerned. I remember when the counting stopped in certain swing states with Trump ahead, and when they came back, Trump was losing. I’d never seen anything like it in my lifetime. Everyone knows that the judicial branches changed the rules in an unconstitutional manner in certain swing states, right before the election, where it was too late to do anything about it. And then the Russian hoax, the Hunter laptop, the censorship on social media, etc.
Those demonstrating didn’t know what to do, how to go about protesting what they saw as unjust. And then there were a minority of instigators, some outside of the government, and maybe some from the government.
Dear Chris,
No, the VP should not change his ceremonial position to a position where he can throw out election results, and not one Republican-controlled legislature in any swing state challenged the results–the alternate “electors” were Joe and Fred and Susan coming together with Billy Bob and saying that they represented their state. Trump lost court case after court case after court case, where he had the opportunity to present his arguments, losing before judges whom, in numbers of cases, he himself had appointed.
Thanks.
I’m just going to have to leave it as, we disagree. Can you point me to the exact quote of the word “reinterpreted” that you used the quotation marks for?
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
I was not intending to the “reinterpreted” as an exact quote. But here is an exact quote:
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution”
If Kamala had said this it would be all over the place as a very, very evil thing. I cannot see how I can be consistent and just make it like it doesn’t matter that Trump said it. I do not have confidence that he will voluntarily cede power if he gets it again.
If you are aware of him taking this statement back, please share it. That he can back down on the pro-life position because it is allegedly too unpopular, but not back down on his very unpopular stuff like the above, is deeply concerning to me.
I also don’t want to get into a big discussion of it, though. So please feel free to say anything further that you wish (or not) and we can leave it at that.
Thank you.
Okay, so when you put “reinterpreted” in quotes, no one actually said that? You were just making it up? You put words in people’s mouths that they didn’t actually say? Or what did you mean by the quotation marks as if someone said those words?
I was using “reinterpreted” as a short-hand, one-word way of stating something even worse, that “all rules” in the “Constitution” should be “terminated,” as well as for Trump’s dictatorial sympathies. (He was not a dictator last time he was president, but I think he clearly has sympathies towards it. So did, e. g., FDR.)
Yes, Ms. Harris also has very problematic dictatorial sympathies, and she would appoint judges who would act as dictators.
Since I am not in a swing state, I could without affecting the presidential election outcome at all cast a protest vote, so I voted for the 100% pro-life American Solidarity Party ticket: https://www.solidarity-party.org/platform for the top of the ticket while voting straight Republican for the rest of the ballot–which, this being California, also probably doesn’t make any difference since Republicans are just about certain to lose here all the way down the ticket. My vote may actually matter for some of the propositions and the local initiatives, however. I may wear the three “I voted” stickers our household gets all at once to make an implicit point about bulk-mail ballots.
Trump wrote his “termination” comment on his Truth Social account. The liberal media went after him about like you are, and then he came back with the following: “The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES.” And, “What I said was that when there is ‘MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION,’ as has been irrefutably proven in the 2020 Presidential Election, steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG.” Finally, “Only FOOLS would disagree with that and accept STOLEN ELECTIONS. MAGA!” That is Trump explaining what he was saying, which he should be given the benefit of that.
On the abortion position, Trump has come out pro-life in the same manner as Reagan, except that he got Roe v. Wade overturned. That sends it back to the states. He is attempting to keep it a state issue, which I think is extremely wise. That way it doesn’t keep swinging back and forth all depending upon who is in Congress. Is a national ban on abortion a conservative approach? I don’t think so. Criminal laws like this, unless they are committed against the nation as a whole should be state. This is a federalist position. Each time Congress crafts a criminal law covering a new subject matter, it effectively expands the power of the federal government. Trump has been the most anti-abortion president in modern history by the mere fact of his three anti-abortion Supreme Court appointees. Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy, Bush Sr. appointed Souter. Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, who wrote Roe v. Wade.
Personally, I wish you would be done commenting on anything I write that is Pro-Trump. You’ve been sufficiently Anti-Trump to last your entire lifetime. Your net affect overall IMO is pro Harris. You didn’t vote for her, but overall you’ll mainly help her get elected with what you write. I say that with complete calmness.
I edited my comment to take the quotation marks out on “reinterpreted.”
Thanks for the clarification on the Trump tweet. It was very Trumpian of him to say that a literal interpretation of his own comment was “fake news,” but I am glad that he took it back, after a fashion. I am genuinely glad he backpedeled on it. If he has ever disavowed the idea that the VP can unilaterally overturn election results I would like to see that as well. That is good. Good for him.
The Constitution actually guarantees a right to life, so all laws allowing abortion at any stage of pregnancy are unconstitutional. Therefore the national legislature should pass a law banning all abortion, just like they ban all murder after children are outside of their mothers, and like we have a national ban on partial-birth abortion, passed in 2003, and the Supreme Court should strike down all laws legalizing abortion everywhere.
Thanks for wanting people to think Biblically and evaluate all of life in terms of Scripture.
Where do you guys get your news? I like Brannon Howse. He’s a Christian. He does a few shows daily and even has a tv network, worldviewtube. He shares a lot of important things and exposes the darkness. Of course he’s not perfect, but it’s not corporate propaganda.
God bless y’all.
Andy,
What I know, about 90% it’s reading.
Hi Kent,
I don’t know where you else to ask this so just bringing this article to your attention and curious if you would write a response. I am curious what strong KJV proponents think.
https://pleadingfortheplowboy.com/
I published the comment, but I don’t remember reading it, or this article. I might take a look at it when I get some time to do so.
At least we now have Kent on record supporting a pro-choice candidate. This is a red line that I thought conservatives would not cross, but again, when it comes to Trump, conservatives have been willing to throw out all principles they previously claimed to support. I know you’ll say that he is the lesser of two evils, and supports less abortion, etc,, but he is officially on record supporting abortion up to and beyond 6 weeks gestation. He has also gone on record opposing a national abortion ban. Maybe you believe he is lying about this only to get elected which, I suppose, is consistent with his character. Truly sad.
David,
I shouldn’t allow your comment, because I would count four ‘untruths’ in it. 1) I don’t support a Pro-Choice candidate any more than when I voted for Reagan. His is the same position that Trump says he takes. 2) I’m not throwing out “all principles…” 3) You don’t know what I’ll say. 4) He hasn’t said he supports abortion up to six weeks. 5) Trump saying he would veto a national abortion ban is the same as his vetoing a national pro-abortion law — he says the decision should stay with the states — the same as the overturning of Roe v. Wade. This is a conservative federalist position that sends criminal laws back to the states. If you are anti-abortion and you want to end as many abortions as possible, you will vote for Trump. If not, then you are for a pro-abortion law, because that’s the position that Harris takes.
Kent,
If you support Trump, you support a pro choice candidate. He criticized Florida’s 6 week abortion ban as too extreme. It is not hard to extrapolate, for me a least, that he thinks the ban should be at a later gestational age. Maybe it is hard for you. That is absolutely a pro-choice position. If you belief abortion is murder, why should it be left to the states? You are okay living in a country in which some states sanction murder and some don’t? That is an odd position for a conservative and pro-life pastor to take. We will agree to disagree on the other conservative principles you have jettisoned with your support of Trump, but I think it is obvious to intellectually honest people. I am not voting for a candidate who supports some abortion over a candidate who support more abortion. That is an evil and morally feckless position. If it have to choose between Hitler or Mussolini, I will abstain and keep my conscious clear.
David,
It’s sad that Florida allows the killing of babies the first six weeks of pregnancy. I’m surprised you are not coming out against that. To be consistent, if you’re in Florida, you should vote against the six week ban on abortion, because it’s still too late. You really really surprise me with your support of murder. Your lack of criticism of Harris’s position also comes across as pro Harris, and since you are against Trump, you leave people thinking that you must be for the Harris-Walz abortion all the way to the nine month position as a national abortion law. That’s very sad too. I boldly support a ban on certain birth control, that kill a conceived child right after fertilization. You seem to be pro-aborticide, David, without your support of eliminating aborticide conception and your continued support of killing babies up to six weeks. How many babies would you kill to get the pragmatic Florida pro pre-six weeks abortions? Shame on you. When you give the woman a right to choose in the first six weeks, that means you are pro-choice. I can see you with the poster and placard in my mind’s eye, the woman’s body her first six weeks and her choice. Sad. Very sad.
I already know that you are going to come back like you are for allowing babies to live in their first six weeks, but your believability bucket already emptied of all possible belief that you are anything but an unprincipled pro-choicer.
Wow that was pretty incoherent and didn’t address anything I actually said. I criticize Trump for supporting abortion beyond 6 weeks and you spin that into saying I support abortion? I won’t converse further with someone so intellectually dishonest.
Hi David,
What do you mean, “spin that into saying (you) support abortion?” You said you support a six week abortion ban, the Florida ban, which means you support a pro-choice position up to six weeks? You are saying that I’m “dishonest” because I presented a comment or an “argument” that was exactly like the comments and arguments you were bringing.
You are saying that supporting a six week abortion ban does not imply that you support the abortions up to six weeks either. But that’s not how you comment or argue, David. You call how you comment and argue as “dishonest.” It’s exactly what you do and you called what you do, dishonest. I agree. But it’s your standard. It’s the beam in your eye. You can take a position totally against abortion and still support a six week ban. It’s not feckless and inconsistent. Why? Only because it’s you.
You said nothing about aborticide either. Of course that doesn’t mean that you support aborticide birth control, but based on how you comment and argue, it does mean that. Supporting Trump over Harris doesn’t make you pro-choice. Trump politically supporting a six week ban or a 12 week ban doesn’t mean that he is pro-choice. That’s just how you argue and that came back to hang you. Enjoy.
One more thing. This post wasn’t about Trump or abortion. Please do not turn the comment section into your own domain. Keep on topic, please. It’s respectful to do so.
I think you should reread my above comments and show me where I said I support a 6 week ban. I criticized Trump for saying the 6 week ban is too extreme, which indicates that he is more liberal on the issue than Florida. I never said on any post that I support abortion of any kind because I don’t. You have said over and over again that I support abortion when I have said nothing of the kind. As I said, intellectually dishonest. If you have to straw man my views to win a debate, you have already lost.
David,
I’m not going to repeat what I already said. You’ll need to reread it, because you totally missed it. Again. I’m quite sure almost everyone here gets it, except for you.
This is a post on the second amendment and look at the comment section. I used the word “Trump” one time in the post, speaking of “Trump supporters,” and look where we are. This was not a post about abortion or even about Trump. You can see the Trump derangement syndrome.
“You can see the Trump derangement syndrome.”
Yes, I can.
The folks who rave against Trump, voted for (myself included), Bush Senior (liberal, nearly a Democrat), Bob Dole (Liberal), Bush Jr. (Neocon), McCain (Liberal – left the hospital to save Obama care in order to spit on Trump), & Romney (liberal).
IMO, not a one of theses guys could care less about abortion, merely using the talking points to keep the evangelicals voting.
My view of this is that the only difference between Trump and these other Moderates, for that is what they are, is the video tape of Trump bragging about his womanizing. Every wrong or soft position Trump has taken, these other men did as well or worse.
Our nation tetters on on the edge of full blown socialism, which will remove the second amendment, which will ignite a civil war. Out here in the West, we will not be disarmed. I’m voting for Trump, gladly, in the hopes that this gets pushed back a few more years.
Same way I held my nose and voted for the other 5.
Not a very 2A comment, but that will be what sets it off, IMHO
I agree again, Jim.