Rob Woodall on the 2nd Amendment

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Randy King says:

    You may know comedy (I haven’t seen it yet, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt), but I don’t think you understand constitutional law at all. First of all, let’s not conflate “strict contstructionist,” which tends to be something used by jurists when they want to twist something into a ruling for which it was not intended, with textualism, which I believe is what you are eluding to when you decry that parts of the Amendment have been left out of the recitation. A strict constructionist would say that the dropped part having to do with militias and necessities means absolutely nothing, because the plain meaning of the restriction on government in the amendment’s text is abundantly clear – ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The RIGHT to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. No restrictions – period – end of sentence.

    A textualist would say “now wait a minute. The framers would not have put the rest of that stuff in there if that hadn’t intended for it to mean something. Let’s determine how, if in any way, it modifies the restriction.” And thus it would open up an entire discussion on what a “well regulated militia” is, why the term “security of A FREE STATE” was used instead of “security of THE STATE,” and the like, a discussion of which would take us down a rabbit hole, to be sure. Ultimately, the scope of the amendment should be looked at in the context of the framers intentions – why did they feel it was necessary to add such an amendment. And I think any critical analysis would result in the same conclusion – taking away the people’s weapons is what monarchs and dictators do to ensure they retain power. The second amendment seeks to protect the security of the FREE STATE from the tyranny of the Government – just like all the other rights provided in the Bill of Rights.

    Regardless, whether you be a strict constructionist, a textualist, an originalist, or an activist, its abundantly clear that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with people being ALLOWED to have weapons for hunting or sport shooting. It is a specific restriction on the Government’s ability to impeded the RIGHT of people to have guns. Now, you may say that in this day and age, the Second Amendment is outmoded, and the security of the people is more important than the security of their freedom. I disagree, but there certainly is a constructive debate to be had there. But the solution for you and those that “lean” left is not “let’s just start ignoring the Second Amendment and start impinging on the people’s right,” the answer is a repeal of the Second Amendment. Now let’s see a leftist progressive stand up and call for that!

    • Scott says:

      Thank you for the backhanded compliment on my comedy. As far as strict constructionist vs textualist, I will take your more educated word for that. I used strict constructionist, because I hear many of the most right leaning members of the leadership and punditry class refer to themselves that way. I certainly hear that when they say the first amendment neither establishes separation of church and state, nor provides an individual right to privacy. As an aside my favorite strict constructionist has to be Tomi Lahren, who at the wise old age of 27 knows she “loves the constitution.” Anyway, it seems we have to debate the meaning of “well regulated militia” in order to understand the framer’s intentions. First of all why would they have included the phrase if it meant nothing to them? What other phrases in the Bill of Rights or Articles of the Constitution are meaningless? And, Woodall left out the “security of the free state” as well. If as you say, the framer’s intended to prevent tyranny of the Government, the amendment does not address “defending” oneself from his fellow citizens. Arguably much more of the gun rights/regulation debate today centers around “self-defense.” Another aside, I believe it was Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee who painted the vivid picture of a mother alone with her 6 children needing a semi-automatic rifle with 30+ rounds per magazine to save herself from some co-ordinated cartel attack. If you are in a self-defense situation where you need that kind of firepower, you are already dead. It is just a question of how many of the attackers you might take down. Anyhow, we hear much more about the “good guy with a gun” vs “bad guy with a gun” scenario today than the fight against Government tyranny. I guess David Koresh had the right to defend himself against the government because they came for his guns. I am sure he would not have used those guns if the government came to take away the 25 children he had fathered with multiple wives (many of whom were children themselves). Finally, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms already are restricted. Are citizens allowed to possess artillery, armed tanks, fighters, helicopter gunships? I don’t think so. I know that possessing, manufacturing high explosives is a very tightly regulated sphere. Given these restrictions, civilians today are already hopeless if the Government truly decided to turn on them. The weapons available to the full time military, various reserve and guard organizations, and even the police (who are being armed with military weaponry) are overwhelming. So we are left with the choice of seeing individual citizens armed with similar weaponry (and that is not financially impossible for a small set of americans), or accepting that the regulations we are debating now have no real impact on the defense of the free state from the Government. I think the framers and any sane modern person would agree that high powered military weaponry in the few families, individuals, corporate groups that could afford it poses an immensely greater risk to freedom than restrictions on individual gun/weapon rights.

      I know the grammatical structure of this reply is awful. In the middle of stuff and no time for polish.

      Thank you for following, reading, and making a thoughtful, civil argument.

  2. Deb says:

    Call me cynical, but plenty of people, especially politicians, include only the language that supports their opinions and, conveniently, leave out the language that would reveal their hypocrisies and/or lies.