– Bill Buppert
– Larry Elder
– 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).”
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.)
“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.