Fantasy History and the American Left on Private Arms by Bill Buppert

Save pagePDF pageEmail pagePrint page

“Weapons control is mind control.”

– Bill Buppert

“A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders.”

– Larry Elder

“In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.”

– Joe Wurzelbacher

In the previous essay, I discussed the mindset of the weapons prohibitionists in the country. You’ll find many of these totalitarians on both the left and right.*

Please remember all the government supremacists who want your guns will see you dead to achieve their goal. Guaranteed.

I repeat, this is a commie jeremiad against private weapons, no limitations on government guns is on the table. Ever.

I’d like to revisit the latest attempts by academia and book publishers to press the edge of the envelope with the historical fiction that not only was early America gunless but much less of a gun culture than any observer imagined. In this case the fantastical and fiction-filled exploits of Bellisiles successor, Comrade Michael Waldman.

Comrade Waldman is the executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, a communist think tank and advocacy organization focusing on democracy and…progress[ivism]. He was the chief teleprompter-writer for Offal Office Rezident Bill Clinton from 1995–1999.

Remember these creatures exist in a mindset that not only identifies Trump as Hitler but seeks to beg and plead with the same chief executive to disarm them in the face of the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has unhinged so many soy-boys, metrosexuals, women of both sexes and the usual crowd of Marxian aspirants who despise all human transactions that don’t involve a government train conductor.

Let’s make the interpretive framework clear that Waldman operates under. The horrific and collectivist robed Bolshevik, William Brennan, said this gem in 1985 (or it may have been penned by one of his clerks):

“We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as twentieth century Americans. We look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time. For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs.”

In other words, no anchor in the eighteenth century will deter this black-robed nazgul from bloviating from on high that government knows best in every aspect of society excepting his heroic work to make infanticide safe for all post-natal humanity.

Here is Waldman’s brief:

The Second Amendment gives the government permission to form and regulate militias, the sole amendment in the Anti-Federalist bill of rights that empowers the government despite the arcane notion of “shall not be infringed” which is a curious position unsupported by contemporary opinion in the eighteenth century. Waldman fails to explain how one amendment of the original ten would codify and justify a government veto on a right whereas the rest are rejoinders against government behavior.

If you have an air sickness bag, I urge you to read this interview with Waldman in the communist monthly, Mother Jones.

It allows you to rely on Comrade Waldman’s own notions without me putting words in his mandibles.

To Waldman, however, the idea of an individual right to gun ownership is not just wrong but ridiculous; those who disagree are not just mistaken but idiots. Pro-gun historians are hacks — for example, George Mason law professor Joyce Malcolm is “a previously little-known historian” who writes “in a tone of having discovered a lost hieroglyph.”

Keep in mind that the primary reason the Federal judiciary system exists is to regulate, reduce and eliminate all private life, liberty and property in America. The legal architecture is the farmer of the communist kudzu that has been consuming the US since its founding. The cascading reduction of private gun rights over time is simply a representative example of the project..

Three respected constitutional scholars — Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, and Laurence Tribe of Harvard — have concluded that the amendment protects individuals; Waldman does not answer but belittles them, citing “Robert Frost’s definition of a liberal: someone so open-minded he will not take his own side in an argument.” Levinson in particular deserves mention because he approached the notion of gun ownership with a law school article entitled “The Embarrassing Second Amendment”.

I am so grateful I was able to get a copy of this pig at the library so I wouldn’t contribute one debt-buck to this government supremacist. I’m waiting for Clayton Cramer to destroy Waldman in detail in the same fashion he turned the human dumpster-fire posing as a writer, Michael Bellisiles, into a former academic. Mind you, it’s a brief 170-page book with end-notes where he spends the first one hundred pages attempting to eviscerate the word militia to mean total government control of firearms and the weak un-packaging of the horrific Heller decision by the Supremes in 2008 (the court’s majority opinion said that the Second Amendment protects “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home).”

BUT

 Zombie Scalia opined:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

And then Zombie Scalia avers:

Page 51, in re Miller

“The Government’s brief spent two pages discussing English legal sources, concluding “that at least the carrying of weapons without lawful occasion or excuse was always a crime” and that (because of the class-based restrictions and the prohibition on terrorizing people with dangerous or unusual weapons) “the early English law did not guarantee an unrestricted right to bear arms.  Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, at 9–11.” (Emphasis added.)

Page 55

“Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.  We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.  See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) …” (Emphasis added.)

I would have preferred the robed scum on the court have gotten one vote to fail the test of individuals’ rights and let the games begin to codify mass seizure of firearms in the country.

I am consistently amazed at the sloppy but unrelenting jurisprudence that if applied to any other Bill of Right appendage absent the besotted Ninth Amendment (the deadest letter of all) would be laughed at and belittled by any sober observer.

Mind you, I find the entire industry on both sides per the Second Amendment to be silly. The 2A did not create a right, it sought to codify protection for the a priori notion of individual self-defense. When we strip down the argument to its essence absent all the clamor and fury of the allegedly opposing sides, both overwhelmingly seek to impose limitations on self-defense. You will find no one in the National Rifle Association willing to roll back any gun laws passed by the Marxist courts since 1934.

What confounds me is that if Waldman is correct and there is no individual right to armed self-defense, then why the clamor to repeal the Second amendment? An effort I endorse with great enthusiasm. Nothing will settle this question quicker than releasing the national coproach apparatus and its bureaucratic apparatchiks and allowing them to start seizing weapons and associated property against the will of the owners.

Let’s do it. The weapons prohibitionists need to put their money where their myths are.

Waldman is another fraud in the colossal and existential waste of resources and money in the academic government cartels in Amerika.

Think for yourself and you’ll find your conclusions more profound and correct than any of the credentialed members of the university moronathon. During prohibition, government recognized it required a constitutional amendment to commit to prohibition, today we do it with mere legislation and the death of thousand edicts and statist diktats.

Others speak against Waldman more elegantly than me.

Again, I leave you with this tidbit from David E. Young:

“There are fundamental problems with this book, and historical errors and internal contradictions abound. Waldman views the state militia protecting nature of the Second Amendment as crystal clear. However, this conflicts with numerous assertions of the Second Amendment’s utter ambiguity, no doubt designed to cloud the rather clear “right of the people” language- “foggy wording”, “odd locution”, “is so inscrutable”, etc. His emphasis on the impossibility of understanding the Amendment’s language flows into reviews of the book. Waldman’s ambiguity campaign and his admission of not knowing why Madison’s version was phrased as it was, result in this question – why would anyone read this book to find out about Second Amendment history and intent?

Treatment of Vermont’s 1777 Declaration of Rights ‘people have a right to bear arms’ provision by Waldman is schizophrenic, the result of adamant refusal to accept its private rights protecting nature. His argument on the number of right to arms provisions is in error unless Vermont is included. He treats Vermont as a state in his text, then criticizes Justice Scalia’s Heller decision in a note for mention of Vermont because it was “a separate republic”. Yet, in that note, he refers to Vermont’s declaration of rights as that “state’s” charter. Justice Scalia’s Heller decision and Justice Stevens’ dissent both quote Vermont’s right to bear arms provision, treat it as significant, recognize it as protecting individual rights, and use it in their argument. Scalia is rebuked, while, conversely, only praise is heaped on Justice Stevens’ “powerfully set[ting] out the historic record”. Agenda driven spin is apparent throughout this book.

Waldman’s fundamental error is constant conflation of the Second Amendment and its predecessors with unrelated militia powers amendment history and intent. He quotes George Mason in the Virginia Ratifying Convention discussing a militia powers amendment, but leaves off the amendment Mason specified, substituting in its place the entirely unrelated bill of rights predecessor. This conflation of the Second Amendment predecessor with militia powers amendment history and intent demonstrates the unfounded nature of Waldmans’ beliefs. The author quotes some of the essential period sources but always misinterprets them due to this error.

Entirely ignored in this book is the extensive Bill of Rights historical foundation of the Heller decision presented in briefs and cited by the court. He also ignores the existence of the Parker decision, appealed to the Supreme Court as the Heller case. Parker cited extensive historical evidence from the Fifth Circuit’s Emerson decision, which Waldman only mentions in passing as an individual rights ruling. The reason for individual rights rulings commencing with U.S. v Emerson is it was the first case where the full Bill of Rights history of the Second Amendment was ever cited to any federal court. {Ed: In McDonald v. Chicago the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, mooting the questions that had remained in Nordyke v. King.]

Waldman’s historical argument essentially follows that in Justice Stevens’ dissent, which follows the assertions of professional historians in their Heller case brief. Advocates of gun control will like The Second Amendment: A Biography, and it will be useful for someone studying typical gun control advocate views about the Second Amendment. However, it will also be uncritically accepted as historically accurate by many, who will be misled into accepting the author’s unfounded belief system. Waldman’s stated purpose is to support a “new history-driven regime” where professional historians and law scholars are paid handsomely to advance his ‘clear’ understanding of the Second Amendment. In other words, Waldman wants to brainwash the people and the courts into accepting his completely erroneous view of our history relying on the assertions of credentialed ‘experts’.

In stark contrast to Waldman’s confused historical work, there are sources that document every detail of the Second Amendment’s development. Those in search of reality-based history should consider sources relied on by the federal courts as well as Alan Gura, the attorney who won the Heller/Parker cases.“

Buy more weapons, ammunition and the associated training to aim small and miss small with every weapon you own.

The next essay in this series will discuss how RedDR;s packing of the Supremes and his signature on the 1934 NFA and 1938 FFA paved the way for the idiocy of the US v. Miller decision which despite all its faults specifically calls out the ownership of military weapons as an individual right.

Rehnquist describes the implications in real time of Roosevelts attempted coup with the Supremes:

“President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court … not by any novel legislation, but by serving in office for more than twelve years, and appointing eight of the nine Justices of the Court. In this way the Constitution provides for ultimate responsibility of the Court to the political branches of government. [Yet] it was the United States Senate – a political body if there ever was one – who stepped in and saved the independence of the judiciary … in Franklin Roosevelt’s Court-packing plan in 1937.”

*Editor’s Note: The use of right and left is profoundly misleading, there is only individualist and collectivist and the latter are always interventionists in every way. The Left-Right descriptor muddles any explanatory framework. ALL political actors are de facto and de jure communists in the collectivist potential once the machinery of government rolls forth.

10 thoughts on “Fantasy History and the American Left on Private Arms by Bill Buppert

  1. Bill, I see your perspective and raise you an observation: It is not “guns” the collectivists ultimately desire, it is total domination. Even if one were to eliminate firearms in totality, liberty-minded people could still be problematic. Thus I can only conclude their true goal is to subjugate all dissent even if this means elimination of the dissidents – something not unheard of in communist circles.

  2. “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.”

    This is a direct quote from the first to hold the gavel as Chief Justice of the one of most corrupt and violent institutions known to free men, they call it SCROTUS or some such shit on interwebs and google powered abacus (or should i derive abaci as a plural) devices carried by modern day helots.

    John Jay, typical statist, writing as Publius, paving the way for this collection of states to become the communist outpost it has become.

    It truly sickens me to read these men, quoting Romans and Spartans, while setting the stage for the grandest of all slave camps known to man, the USSA.

    Each and every step of the enslavement, caging, owning and taxing of the bipedal wage slaves in this taxing district has been approved by these fucktards on the SCROTUS.

    Stay on em Bill, I’ll trade ya my wood chippers for your helicopters all day long, damn woodchippers make even the big commie fucks into pig food or fertilizer.

    BFYTW.

    No rail cars for me.

    Not my style.

    Sean

  3. Wonderful essay Bill but we’ve got to get down to brass tacks – the only way we will ever change the system is to kill a lot of people and never allow Jewish Bolsheviks to ever enter this country again… sorry, that’s just a f×cking fact

  4. “But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time. For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs.”

    A little light on precedent, isn’t he?

    The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.
    –SOUTH CAROLINA v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

  5. “Jewish bolsheviks” are still bolsheviks. No more, no less. I despise bolsheviks, socialists, statists, authoritarians, totalitarians, do-gooders, activists, SJWs, and ALL intrusive busybodies whatever their style or philosophy. Just butt out and leave me alone.

    We have the God-given right to protect ourselves and the duty to protect our families.

    Those who don’t agree had best stay away.

    Your guns are safe. TRUST THE PLAN

Let us know what you think...