Second Amendment Rallies Present Open Threat to Rule of Law

[Joanne98]

Two weeks ago, I blogged about the disturbing number of threats that have been received by Democrats in Congress who voted for health care reform and called on Republicans to soften some of their heated rhetoric about the legislation. Simultaneously, I highlighted the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller, which appeared to endorse the National Rifle Association's view that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of "preventing government tyranny."

This unfortunate combination of messages from the right wing of American politics -- that our current government is oppressive and the Constitution authorizes insurrection -- is a dangerous mix that has already led to serious violence. And in a case of truly bad timing -- as we receive confirmation that serious threats to Members of Congress increased threefold over the last quarter -- pro-gun activists are scheduled to descend on our nation's capital on April 19 for a pair of rallies that will aggressively trumpet this toxic ideology.

The two events -- the "Second Amendment March" at the Washington Monument on the National Mall and the "Restore the Constitution Open-Carry Rally" at Fort Hunt National Park in Virginia -- will feature a number of speakers who are current and former militia leaders or who have ties to extreme, anti-government groups. Time and time again, they have made it clear they believe the Obama administration is "an oppressive, totalitarian government" and their guns enable them to do something about it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/second-amendment-rallies_b_533969.html

[TheWraith]

1. Mr. Horwitz needs to do some fresh research.

"Simultaneously, I highlighted the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller, which appeared to endorse the National Rifle Association's view that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of "preventing government tyranny.""

No. The Heller decision stated that the second amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. Period. It has nothing to do with "tyranny" or anything else. That's not the NRA's view, it's the legal fact, which has been pretty well established over the course of the last ~200 years, and in the writings of the founding fathers. A simple reading of the second amendment will make it's meaning quite plain: that people are entitled to own firearms for the defense of themselves and of the country. It's also clear that it's never been intended as an "overthrow the government" button: see Shays' Rebellion.

Lastly, the assumption that a few hundred teabaggers in a park 11 miles from the Capitol are going to present an imminent threat of civil war is laughable. If the right wingers start something, it's not going to be because we decided not to violate the constitutional right of assembly.

[damntexdem]

3. An 'individual right' is a NRA fantasy now endorsed by an activist SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, the NRA wants to ensure that no militia is well-regulated -- a complete twisting of the 2nd Amendment. I'd be happy to see the repeal of the 2nd Amendment -- but it won't be, much to the detriment, or destruction, of American society.

[paulsby]

5. pop quiz

how many justices think it;s an individual right?

you might be surprised

[cowman]

11. Oh I know I know I know

all 9 justices

[TheWraith]

8. And I'm sure that there are other rights some people would like to repeal.

Fortunately, you don't get to decide how other people are supposed to live.

And no, it's been recognized as an individual right for hundreds of years--the idea that it's not an individual right is a recent rewrite of history.

Also, you clearly don't know what "well regulated" meant in the late 1700s, nor what "miliia" means. "Well regulated" meant properly functioning and capable. Nothing to do with "regulation" as we use the word today. And "militia" is divided into "organized militia," meaning the National Guard, and "unorganized militia," which means all males age 17 to 45.

[depakid]

9. Agreed- the case was wrongly decided and will be reversed down the track

in accordance with the opinion of the 4 dissenting justices.

Unfortunately, in the meantime, there will be tens of thousands of preventable deaths and many more instances of violence against public officials.

[cowman]

12. Don't you have a problem to solve in

Australia? Why do you have to get involved in our rights? Don't hold your breath waiting for reversal because ALL 9 JUSTICES CONCURRED THAT THE 2ND AMEND WAS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.

Now go back to fixing your own country

[depakid]

13. The case was wrongly decided in the same manner of jurisprudence as the Citizen's United case

Unfortunately, some people can't see far enough beyond their own noses to recognize the pattern.

I actually feel sorry for some of you- you fuss and holler about "your rights" but know and understand so little about the larger pictures that your (often emotional) opinions end up childish- and are so easily manipulated to your detriment.

[cowman]

10. Ha Ha Ha

you're a funny person. Gee I didn't know that the 2nd Amend was a fantasy of the NRA, I thought it was written by the Founding Fathers.
BTW all 9 justices agreed that the 2nd Amend conveyed an individual right not a collective right.

Get you facts straight

[paulsby]

4. not really on one point

the 2nd amendment does not PROVIDE a right

it RECOGNIZES a right

this is pretty basic stuff.

other than that, good post

[SteveM]

2. HuffPo again. Keeping gun-control alive for the benefit of the GOP...

Pretty reckless assertion that the Heller decision and the usual far-Right bullshit is a "dangerous mix." If someone wants to demonstrate for or against the Second Amendment, they don't need a Supreme Court decision to support their "toxic ideology."

Sounds like more of HuffPo's rather archaic culture war -- which ONLY benefits the GOP.

BTW, if this writer is so concerned about a bunch of right-wing loonies running around, then do something about it. Counter-demonstrate, demand time on MSM to air your concerns, speak out against these guys at every opportunity; I'm tired of this "we-are-intimidated" crap. DO something and quit acting like the bullied. Slapping a failed gun-control outlook over the issue of right-wing extremism like so much masking tape is disingenuous and meaningless.

Get to the range. Learn to shoot. You'll feel better for it, and won't worry so much about spittle-flying right-wingers.

[Mopar151]

6. It's the stray bullets and "collateral damage" that bother me....n/t

[SteveM]

14. Most "collateral damage" is done by the punk/thug getting juice...

by shooting up a gathering of others in some sort of vengeance/territorial shooting. The punk/thug is one step removed from not caring; they in fact HOPE they kill someone -- anyone -- so that they can achieve status within their punk/thug group.

No one likes stray bullets, but the danger of such can be ameliorated by knowledge of a firearm's proper use, and knowing to some extent what "lies beyond" a threat. Is there complete assurance no one will be hit? No. But the danger of stray bullets and collateral damage is not great enough to argue against self-defense.

[X_Digger]

7. The Bill of Rights "provides" nothing.

It tells government which pre-existing, human rights it must protect.

As the SCOTUS said in US v Cruikshank- "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

[Hard2believe]

15. In all my years on this

beautiful earth I have not been fortunate to leave it as it was when I was but a young wee lad. Today we have in this most beautiful of countries people arguing over guns. Guns!!! Another side arguing over health care!!!! Another group (right wing of course) crying about socialism when half the idiots doing the arguing I'll bet know nothing of the meaning of the word and calling the president a Nazi;moron (morans) hitler(sic) was a right wing fanatic just like you and the argument against increased gun laws or at least a debate on the merits of enforcement of new and more modern laws would in the humble opinion of this man whose father was an avid hunter but a strict believer in gun control.

There are many on this very forum that argue against anything to do with their precious guns. To those I would ask if they have ever seen the grieving mother of an accidental shooting, the suicides,the maiming and of course the murders.

I saw it for years and left my chosen profession as a result.

Stick and argue those of you progressives that favor the status quo as does the right wing. I have nothing but contempt for those of you that will not debate an issue but follow these idiot "tea bagger" types that are ruing this nation.

The man sitting in the White House is someone that should be lauded as he is around the world but not in his homeland. Disgraceful. If he had some support withing congress and the senate he would have acted on some types of loop holes that already exist. He has stuck his neck out for us(me and my family) on health care. He would do the same on gun laws and stop this Afghan mentality of carrying AK 47's where you like and guns strapped to your hips even when the president is around.

Probably most of this does not make a lot of sense to many of you as I'm so angry with the all this talk and blame as a diversion and then I see an ad on this very page advocating guns and suggesting that Hilary Clinton and the UN want to take your gun away.