IllHunter
Member
I sent this out with the hope they publish it, not dreaming, just hoping.Please edit and comment !
What got me started:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0326-guns-20100326,0,5647468.story
My $.02:
Untangling the thinking of a History Professor, constitutional originalism and speech control.
But first lay aside your computers, presses and ball point pens.
In his commentary (March 26, 2010), Thomas William Heych purports to “have seen the light”. I say he’s still in the dark. He maintains that “ his view of the Supreme Courts’ majority opinion in Heller v. Washington D.C. and Justice Scalia overturning his belief that the Second Amendment to the Constitution neither makes sense nor applies to modern arms. To me it is almost beyond belief, that a professor (emeritus) of history (no less) from vaunted Northwestern University, knows nothing of the “Founding Fathers’ intent”. Almost, then I read on and see the professors true intent. He believes he knows better than the Majority of Justices of the Supreme Court. He professes to “untangle” the arguments on gun control and the second amendment. Yet he shuns all the HISTORY surrounding the adoption of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. I with my simple BS can easily call bs on his arguments by quoting James Madison, when advocating for a declaration of rights, “The following appears to be the most important objects of such an instrument. It would more especially comprise a doctrine in favor of the equality of human rights; of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms…….If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever denigrate into tyranny.” 1
So it would appear the founders feared tyranny. And what is the only thing, in all history that has ever inhibited tyranny? Ah yes, an armed populace. Next we examine the professors confusion about the Second as “a tad ambiguous”. Granted, many have also argued on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but the “who is the militia?” argument has been resolved. Let history again supply the words. “The Founders distinguished not only between the people and the militia, but also between both of those entities and “the militia, when in actual service.” The Fifth Amendment provides: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger….” If keeping and bearing arms was a “right” only of “the militia, when in actual service,” the Framers certainly would have so stated. It would have been odd, when guaranteeing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” had the Framers really meant “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms when authorized and activated by the state government.””2
So the learned professor takes umbrage from the decision of the Supreme Court, who held in Heller v. Washington D.C. that the right belongs to the people. And that doesn’t jibe with Professor Heyck’s progressive agenda for “the people”. He sees no chance of tyranny and insults the “tea partyers, Minutemen and backwoods militia who think that they need to be as well armed as the U.S. Army.”
Now professor, how can you now label us militia and not believe the Second Amendment applies to us.
Then, you condescend to grant us primitive weapons, and believe we were also allowed “hatchets, tomahawks, swords, pitchforks, cudgels and the like” yet Chicago authorities very recently arrested one citizen for trying to enter a building with three knives, no swords or cudgels. Perhaps it’s knives that are not included in your allowance? Your idea that the Constitution doesn’t allow for modern arms is poppycock and I easily refute your contention that the Second Amendment applies only to the arms in use at the ratification. After the Civil War when several southern states sought to debar freed slaves the use of arms, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, July 9, 1868. That was after the invention of both the repeating rifle and the modern cartridge. Both came into use during that conflict and were in popular possession after the war. So when the 14th was used to apply the 2nd, center fire arms were in vogue. No one chose to change the wording of the 2nd, they and all the arguments around it kept it intact.
Lastly, why continue to argue the Heller opinion and ignore the recently argued McDonald v Chicago. Why not start now and tell us the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to the city, the state or the people. Perhaps it only applies to the militia, but again, that’s us, by your words. So perhaps you’d be better off enjoying your retirement and stop exhibiting your proclivity to curtail my civil rights. If you’d like to debate the Second or the Fourteenth Amendments in this publication, write your next letter with a quill.
What got me started:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0326-guns-20100326,0,5647468.story
My $.02:
Untangling the thinking of a History Professor, constitutional originalism and speech control.
But first lay aside your computers, presses and ball point pens.
In his commentary (March 26, 2010), Thomas William Heych purports to “have seen the light”. I say he’s still in the dark. He maintains that “ his view of the Supreme Courts’ majority opinion in Heller v. Washington D.C. and Justice Scalia overturning his belief that the Second Amendment to the Constitution neither makes sense nor applies to modern arms. To me it is almost beyond belief, that a professor (emeritus) of history (no less) from vaunted Northwestern University, knows nothing of the “Founding Fathers’ intent”. Almost, then I read on and see the professors true intent. He believes he knows better than the Majority of Justices of the Supreme Court. He professes to “untangle” the arguments on gun control and the second amendment. Yet he shuns all the HISTORY surrounding the adoption of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. I with my simple BS can easily call bs on his arguments by quoting James Madison, when advocating for a declaration of rights, “The following appears to be the most important objects of such an instrument. It would more especially comprise a doctrine in favor of the equality of human rights; of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms…….If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever denigrate into tyranny.” 1
So it would appear the founders feared tyranny. And what is the only thing, in all history that has ever inhibited tyranny? Ah yes, an armed populace. Next we examine the professors confusion about the Second as “a tad ambiguous”. Granted, many have also argued on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but the “who is the militia?” argument has been resolved. Let history again supply the words. “The Founders distinguished not only between the people and the militia, but also between both of those entities and “the militia, when in actual service.” The Fifth Amendment provides: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger….” If keeping and bearing arms was a “right” only of “the militia, when in actual service,” the Framers certainly would have so stated. It would have been odd, when guaranteeing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” had the Framers really meant “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms when authorized and activated by the state government.””2
So the learned professor takes umbrage from the decision of the Supreme Court, who held in Heller v. Washington D.C. that the right belongs to the people. And that doesn’t jibe with Professor Heyck’s progressive agenda for “the people”. He sees no chance of tyranny and insults the “tea partyers, Minutemen and backwoods militia who think that they need to be as well armed as the U.S. Army.”
Now professor, how can you now label us militia and not believe the Second Amendment applies to us.
Then, you condescend to grant us primitive weapons, and believe we were also allowed “hatchets, tomahawks, swords, pitchforks, cudgels and the like” yet Chicago authorities very recently arrested one citizen for trying to enter a building with three knives, no swords or cudgels. Perhaps it’s knives that are not included in your allowance? Your idea that the Constitution doesn’t allow for modern arms is poppycock and I easily refute your contention that the Second Amendment applies only to the arms in use at the ratification. After the Civil War when several southern states sought to debar freed slaves the use of arms, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, July 9, 1868. That was after the invention of both the repeating rifle and the modern cartridge. Both came into use during that conflict and were in popular possession after the war. So when the 14th was used to apply the 2nd, center fire arms were in vogue. No one chose to change the wording of the 2nd, they and all the arguments around it kept it intact.
Lastly, why continue to argue the Heller opinion and ignore the recently argued McDonald v Chicago. Why not start now and tell us the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to the city, the state or the people. Perhaps it only applies to the militia, but again, that’s us, by your words. So perhaps you’d be better off enjoying your retirement and stop exhibiting your proclivity to curtail my civil rights. If you’d like to debate the Second or the Fourteenth Amendments in this publication, write your next letter with a quill.
