John Feinstein is an Idiot
I just finished reading this article by Washington Post writer John Feinstein. Feinstein was making his comments on the New York Giants’ wide receiver, Plaxico Burress, who allegedly took a gun into a nightclub last week and accidentally shot himself in his leg.
I could tell from the beginning, the moment I read the headline, “Time for Leagues to Do Something About Players With Guns”, what this idiot was going to say. It is fascinating that someone so ignorant of our Bill of Rights and grammar could get a job as a journalist.
Following are some tidbits from the article. It’s a fascinating read, revealing the result of the socialist indoctrination of our children from kindergarten to college. They are growing up to beg the government to exercise total control of their lives – from socialized medicine to the banning of firearms, Social Security to foreclosure relief.
“Most likely, it is not the case more often than not…”
(Yes, that’s professional journalism at its finest.)
“The owners and players should agree that players can’t own handguns.”
“Now, let’s not start screaming about the Second Amendment. To begin with, the amendment should be abolished — a sensible interpretation of the amendment is that it was written to allow the people to raise a militia for protection and to hunt for food. Clearly no one needs to raise a militia these days, and those who hunt for a living can be licensed to do so.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on there, buddy. The second amendment is not about hunting at all. And there is no “raising” of a militia. Militia, as used in the Bill of Rights, means every citizen owning a gun to protect themselves, their families, and their country from all enemies, especially standing armies from international or domestic government. It was mostly meant to protect Americans in case there was a military coup d’etat, so they could take back the country and preserve the Republic. Let’s look at some quotes from early America to show this is the case.
Boston Journal of the Times, April 13, 1769:
“Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”
John Adams, as defense attorney for the British Soldiers at the Boston Massacre trial:
“Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence…”
St. George Tucker published an interpretation of the Constitution in 1803 and told how it differed from the restricted “right” to bear arms in England:
“The bill of rights, 1 W. and M, says Mr. Blackstone, (Vol. 1 p. 143), secures to the subjects of England the right of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree. In the construction of these game laws it seems to be held, that no person who is not qualified according to law to kill game, hath any right to keep a gun in his house. Now, as no person, (except the game-keeper of a lord or lady of a manor) is admitted to be qualified to kill game, unless he has 100l. per annum, &c. it follows that no others can keep a gun for their defence; so that the whole nation are completely disarmed, and left at the mercy of the government, under the pretext of preserving the breed of hares and partridges, for the exclusive use of the independent country gentlemen. In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”
Finally, in 1833, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Joseph Story, wrote of the Second Amendment:
“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.”
The Second Amendment did not give us the right to bear arms, it was a codification of a previously-existing common law right to have weapons to defend yourself, your family, your land, and your country, from all enemies, foreign and domestic, but most especially from tyrants in your own government.
Nobody, not athletes nor idiot sports journalists, should be denied their right to self defense and self preservation. Nobody should be denied their right to self protection against tyrannical government. Agreed, people should be smarter than Mr. Burress apparently was in their handling of said weapons, but the only person suffering from his actions is himself, so I see no need for punishment in this instance.
~ by skepsis on December 1, 2008.
Posted in 2nd amendment, constitution, gun confiscation
Tags: america, bill of rights, blackstone, burress, coup, coup d'etat, firearms, foreclosure, george tucker, giants, gun, gun control, john adams, john feinstein, joseph story, military, new york giants, plaxico burress, rebellion, republic, second amendment, social security, socialism, socialist, Socialized Medicine, standing army, tyranny, tyrant, washington post, wide receiver