@hightor,
Jamie Raskin wrote:Many Republicans in Congress agree with Representative Matt Gaetz that the Second Amendment "is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary."
This purported right to overthrow the government means that the people must enjoy access to weapons that are wholly unnecessary for hunting or self-defense, such as military-style assault weapons. As Representative Chip Roy, a Republican, argues, the Second Amendment was "designed purposefully to empower the people to resist the force of tyranny used against them."
Some champions of this insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment seem to glorify violence against public officials. Two weeks before the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection overran the U.S. Capitol, Representative Lauren Boebert declared that the Second Amendment "has nothing to do with hunting, unless you're talking about hunting tyrants, maybe."
Leftist condemnation of insurrectionist theory is always filled with logical and factual errors. But I am not a fan of insurrectionist theory, and I prefer to not waste my energy defending an ideology that I am not a fan of.
Do note that insurrectionist theory is not the only route to the American people owning military weapons. The argument that "the right to keep and bear arms is connected to the militia" also means that the American people have the right to have military weapons.
I'm a much bigger fan of this later argument, so will happily expend energy defending that. Assuming that I am not silenced by a2k censorship that is.
Jamie Raskin wrote:Statements such as these were irresponsible enough before Jan. 6. Today, such talk courts disaster. It valorizes the brutality of the worst insurrectionary domestic attack at the Capitol in U.S. history,
Leftists tyrants really need to get a grip. Peaceful protests are a normal part of democracy.
Jamie Raskin wrote:freezes our ability to pass reasonable gun safety legislation and justifies even more deadly political violence. It is essential to reject the myth that frustrated citizens have a Second Amendment right to raise arms against the government -- an outrageous betrayal of our Constitution.
As I noted above, connecting the right to keep and bear arms to the militia has the same end result of the American people having the right to have military weapons.
Jamie Raskin wrote:Despite all this abundant repudiation of insurrection and rebellion in the body of the Constitution, some House Republicans still parrot National Rifle Association talking points and insist that the Second Amendment -- in invisible ink -- protects the right of private citizens to overthrow the government by force.
I could be wrong. I don't have a handy list of everything that the NRA has ever said. But I suspect that he is lying about the NRA's position.
Jamie Raskin wrote:When I point out these problems with constitutional insurrectionism, my G.O.P. House colleagues fall back on two responses. First, they quote profusely from Patrick Henry -- of "Give me liberty or give me death" fame -- which is amusing because Henry was an anti-Federalist who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. It's like quoting speeches by the Confederate leader Jefferson Davis to settle the meaning of the 13th and 14th Amendments.
This Raskin character sure is ignorant. It was Patrick Henry's objections voiced in the Virginia Ratifying Convention that led directly to the Anti-Federalists demanding the Second Amendment.