June 9, 2013
National Urban League president Marc Morial and National Action Network president Al Sharpton called for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be regulated and a new national assault weapons ban, following a public policy meeting of African-American leaders
I would like to take issue with Mr. Sharpton’s and Mr. Morial’s entire statement. Piece by piece. I will comment after each piece of their statement. Their statements are in bold.
“The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not absolute. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the First Amendment,” said Morial
There is nothing more in our lives that is more absolute than The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That old line about “One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the First Amendment,” has been cited for so long and misinterpreted so badly, it’s stupid.
If someone yells “Fire” in a crowded theatre, it is not political speech protected by the First Amendment. That person is guilty of disturbing the peace. That lie he yells could cause personal harm and injury to a panicked crowd. Anyone harmed or injured would be blamed on the person who yelled fire and that person would be charged with that crime. It has nothing to do with the first amendment and, as I point out in my book, the first amendment protects all political speech. It always has and always will. Mr. Morial’s statement is a falsehood.
“And we absolutely think that the idea of banning a military style assault weapon, a weapon that I am confident that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison never laid their eyes on, is not inconsistent with the rights of those who self-protect, those who shoot, who want to participate in sporting and hunting,”
The Constitution doesn’t care what they think as in, “And we absolutely think.” Let me remind you again, the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to regulate any firearms. It does give the States and the people of the States the authority to amend the Constitution.
The Second Amendment is not about sporting and hunting!
We respect the Second Amendment,” Morial added. “None of these provisions speak in absolute terms.”
Again, the Constitution and Bill of Rights absolutely speak in absolute terms and when you understand the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment it couldn’t be clearer. The federal government has no authority with regards anything about arms, that authority lies with the States and the People.
“Absolutely, I mean if you look at the Second Amendment it was that you would have militia to protect yourself in case the government came and attacked citizens,” he responded.
“First of all, if the government were to come to disarm you, you would not be able to use an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Let’s be serious. We’re in a world of drones now so the Second Amendment would not help you in that area. It is absurd to try to cite that.”
Is Al suggesting that there could be a reason for the federal government to use drones on my house? On your house? We have to get back to reality here. Why would the federal government attack any American citizen who has not broken any laws?
If we’re talking about criminals, then yes the States and the people could use force to arrest a criminal, not the federal government. Unless of course the citizen was in violation of a federal crime, which most of are unconstitutional. There is no mention of any crimes; the federal government has authority to enforce, in the Constitution except Piracy, Treason, and specifically counterfeiting.
As I point out in my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties, Defining the Bill of Rights and Other Commentary”:
“It is true that the Bill of Rights protects the people’s political freedom and does not address anything else, especially moral issues. Our forefathers were very cognizant of leaving out moral issues in a political document.
The Constitution does not say it is against the law to rob a bank. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to murder your neighbor. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to sell or use drugs. It does not say anyone has to believe in God or be a Christian. It does not say anything about marriage, nor does the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights does not say these things because these are moral issues and the Bill of Rights was not written to address moral issues. The Bill of Rights was written to address political freedom for the people and set limits of power for a federal government. I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a political document—not a moral one.
“People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country,” Sharpton continued. “And I think that for those that use the Second Amendment [they] are conceding that they have no argument on why you need a magazine with 100 rounds of ammunition or 30 rounds of ammunition.”
Again, the Constitution doesn’t care what Al thinks, and it does not allow the federal government to regulate any rights given to the People and the States because it does care what the States and people think. There is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to even talk about how many rounds of ammo any one can have or how many or what types of weapons any honest American can have.
The States and the people have that authority and any discussion should be left to the States and the People.
Sharpton also said “everybody is regulated with every right,” using airports as an example.
“I don’t have the right to tell them at the airport that I cite the Constitution so I’m not showing you my ID and walk through,” he said.
What? As I point out in my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties, Defining the Bill of Rights and Other Commentary”:
“One of the hardest things for the elite class of judges, academics and intellectuals to do is to accept the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at face value. They constantly try to read in or interpret the wording in ways to give some other meaning than what our forefathers intended. They are wrong.”
Why does he cite the Constitution when talking about common sense laws about using an airport? Any person using an airline or personal aircraft must follow the regulations of how that airport, airline our use of private aircraft is used. It has nothing to do with any “right.”
He does open up another can of worms by mentioning having to show an ID. While I’m all for that, who we show the ID to is up for question. If we were to inspect the Patriot act that created the Department of Homeland Security we will come to the conclusion that there are parts of the Patriot Act itself that are unconstitutional.
Morial said he is “waiting for someone to suggest that the Second Amendment gives them the right to own a tank and to park it in their driveway.”
OK, Mr. Morial, I’ll suggest it here and now. Let’s suppose someone has the where withal to buy and maintain a tank. Let’s suppose he does park it in his driveway. What crime has he committed? If he fires it in an open part of a desert on private property with the approval of the owner, what crime has he committed?
I met a guy a few years ago who owns a T-38, yeah just like the picture
There’s one for sale on the internet. What crime has any owner of a jet fighter committed? You see, that’s the problem with that mindset, They aren’t as worried about criminals who actually commit crimes as much as they are about a free, law abiding American citizen’s who will never use the tank or jet fighter to commit any crime. Freedom for all the good people is not in their dictionary. They must control our lives. Get it?
The group of more than 60 leaders were meeting to discuss “federal policy recommendations” for President Obama and Congress.
I know by now I sound like a broken record, BUT the Constitution doesn’t care what these 60 leaders discuss, whoever they are. The Constitution does care about any federal policy towards about the federal government having any policy about the people’s right to bear arms.
It’s simple; the federal government should keep quiet! The Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to have any policy about the people’s weapons. The people and the States do with the power of State law, except taking our weapons away.
So let’s wrap this subject up. No sane honest American wants any tragedy like what happened to the school children or to any American, EVER.
Elected officials should not have any rights that the people don’t have.
Our children should at the very least be as protected as much as any elected official is.
Gun rights for the people are protected by the Constitution. the Second Amendnent, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment
I have no idea by what Constitutional authority Al and his friend claim “the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be regulated?” There is none and it is not mentioned in the Constitution. However, the people can amend the Constitution by;
First, two thirds of the House and the Senate OR two thirds of the States must agree to propose an amendment. If either is done then three fourths of the State legislatures must vote in the affirmative to pass a specific amendment.
Sure does sound like our forefathers wanted the States and the People to only have the final authority when it comes to amending our Constitution, doesn’t it? It doesn’t even mention the executive branch or president being involved at all. This country belongs to the people, not one branch or one man.
When our Forefathers then created the Bill of Rights they emphasized certain issues that pertain to an individual’s freedom. To understand the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, read my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties, Defining the Bill of Rights and Other Commentary,” so I won’t do that here. If you understand their intent as described in the Preamble then you will understand the Tenth Amendment
C Howard Diaz
Since this article was published a Obama administration authorized a $10 million study on guns was published in 2013. One of its many conclusions stated was that guns are used in self defense situations between 500,000 times per year and 3,000,000 times per year based on a number of studies.
Let’s just take the lower number of 500,000 times a year, that’s 1,369 times per day 365 days a year a gun is used for self defense. The media, the liberal’s, and the anti-gunner’s sure as hell don’t want you to know that.