Select Page

A Response To Marlin Reinhart’s Attack On The Second Amendment.

A Response To Marlin Reinhart’s Attack On The Second Amendment.

Yesterday Marlin Reignhart put out an opinion piece titled: Your View: Why Second Amendment no longer serves a national purpose. This article was set up to show how outdated the second amendment was, and the need for us to do away with it, but is this is a legitimate claim?

Marlin Reinhart is a writer with The Morning Call, it is a daily newspaper based in Allentown, Pennsylvania, in the United States. The Morning Call serves a nine-county region of eastern Pennsylvania and western New Jersey and is the largest circulation newspaper of the Lehigh Valley, the third most populous region of Pennsylvania. It ranks among the nation’s top 100 largest-circulation daily newspapers, with circulation of 80,548 daily readers and 119,216 Sunday readers. The newspaper is owned by Tribune Publishing, whose other publications include the Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, Orlando Sentinel, Sun-Sentinel, Hartford Courant, Daily Press and The Virginian-Pilot.

See the source image

Most of what is in the above-stated paragraph are taken from Wikipedia, but what it does not tell us is that all of these are news sites to the extreme left. They are run by Timothy P. Knight, who is the CEO of Tribune Publishing, based out of Chicago. He was a noted giver to the DNC in the 2016 election, contributing to the DNC to aid in getting Hillary elected.

What we have is a hard left perspective of the second amendment, he starts off:

Gun violence has reached epidemic proportions. That fact should prompt some questions about our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But the right to bear arms was never contingent on violence, rather it was given as a right to protect yourself from such actions, both from individuals and from government violence against citizens when their rights are being stripped away.

Gun control debates are about superficial concerns like the right of bad guys to have guns, and the possibility of limiting the extreme automatic power of guns.

Gun control debates are never about the right of bad guys to have guns, rather the right of good guys to have guns. Turns out she, like most Democrats has no understanding of this.

We the people seem to have developed a numbness to actual facts, but maybe it’s time to question the historical facts that underlie that Second Amendment. The first 10 constitutional amendments were ratified in 1791. Historians call them the Bill of Rights. That term may have emanated from the actions of the 1689 English Parliament, before being used in the United States. Nine of those amendments do stand alone as inalienable rights, but the Second Amendment is different.

Where he is wrong here, the rights of all 10 seen as a right of the people, the founding fathers openly stated a well-armed citizenry is put in place to keep the government in check, now the government of the left, and their supporters, like Marlin Reinhart, seem to think we should give up the right to defend ourselves. This is shown in the article Our Founding Fathers And The 2nd Amendment.

It is the First Amendment that proclaims free speech, free press, assembly and petition as the timeless core values of our republic. If the right to bear arms was intended to be timeless, why wasn’t it stated very simply in the First Amendment?

This has to be the weakest part of her argument, I must ask, if this is the case do any of these amendmentsamendements then qualify as less then part of our timeless core values:

3. The conditions for quartering soldiers.  4. Right of search and seizure.  5. Provisions regarding the prosecution of an individual.  6. Right to a speedy trial.  7. Right to trial by jury.  8. Provision against excessive bail and cruel punishment before trial.  9. Rule of construction regarding the constitution; and  10. The rights of the states under the Constitution.

See the source image

I find this surprising, so is he then saying the right to a speedy trial is no longer important, or what about illegal search and seizure? Maybe excessive bail or cruel punishment, that will be fine? These are not listed in the first amendment either.

This seems as silly as the claim that the second of the 10 Commandments is not essential, so are we to disregard all because they were not written first? The founding fathers knew of the ten commandments, seems something the liberals have forgotten as of late, they viewed these rights as inalienable rights, or inherited rights of humanity. But let’s move on:

It is popularly assumed that the Second Amendment gives people both the right to bear arms and the right to assemble militia to put down a hostile government. But why is militia capitalized? Just a little study of history answers those questions and can tell us a lot more. When ratified, each state had a militia that was responsible for maintaining law and order because there were no police forces. After the Civil War, the states’ militia were renamed the National Guard.

In this, she totally disregards what the founding fathers said about this, or maybe using typical liberal thought process ignored what was not convenient to her narrative. Here is what our founding fathers said about this:

“A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790, (If he intended this for all as only a militia, why wasn’t anything said, there were quotes that stated this?)

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 (This shows that the intent was not for a militia, but all to be armed, and this states that NO ONE should be denied this right.) 

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 (While this is accurately quoted, what is not as a rule stated is this is just an English translation of a Latin phrase that dates back to the time of Rome, Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.” It is a rough translation; the more accurate one would be “I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.” This was part of a letter he penned to James Madison where he said, ”Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. A condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” – Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787[1]”

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 (This is a continuation of the letter sent earlier that is posted above.) 

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 (Here Jefferson specifically states that they need to look at the intent, or the spirit of when the constitution was written to look at the intent, just as many say now. This does away with the claim that one shouldn’t, we have one of the authors specifically saying you need to. .)

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788 (This was in reference to the constitution, the 2nd Amendment, this shows the intent had nothing to do with hunting or for the sake of a militia, this had everything to do with protection from the government and the need to be protected from it disarming the people.) 

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people is armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 (This goes on to explain. Further, the need for the people to be armed prevents a standing army from having them be subjugated to their rule, this is for a foreign or a domestic standing army.)

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 (This shows the need or our liberty to be protected, not from the soldiers, rather from governments that wish to strip us of our civil liberties. )

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments, it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 (I don’t think you can be any more clear than this. He speaks of  a standing army, yet the right of a people to maintain gun ownership, says if this right is taken away so will liberty putting the nation on the “brink of Destruction.”)

I would suggest Marlin Reignhart, if you are going to tell others to learn more of history, you do the same yourself. I always find it interesting how liberals ignore the history that is inconvenient to their narrative, then scold everyone else for not daring to be blind to certain parts of history like they are.

The original militia needed readily available citizens armed with muskets to be ready for immediate service. Present National Guard units certainly don’t depend on armed citizens for recruits.

This is another practice by the left, they say that the militia was in need of civilians to volunteer, but I would say that the present is no different, without the citizenry there would be no national guard, yet this is ignored. Further, as we saw from the statements from the framers of the constitution and the bill of rights, this was never their intent.

We need to read the Constitution to determine the real national purpose of the Second Amendment. The president can call the militia into national service to execute the laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. The new nation would have had to call up the states’ militia to execute, suppress and repel because the nation had no standing army.

No, we need both the constitution and what the writers intended. That is the problem with the liberal side of interpreting the constitution; they ignore the intent, then try to turn what is stated into something else. The most exceptional example of this is the separation of Church and State.

See the source image

The framers said they wanted to keep the all-corrupting influence out of the church but never intended to keep the church out of politics, but by ignoring what they stated, we have perverted what they wrote into something never intended.

Suppressing insurrections is exactly opposite to the popularly assumed purpose of the Second Amendment. With the massive standing armed forces the nation has now, the Second Amendment no longer has any national purpose.

Once more the old claims come out, but when our founders said a well-armed citizen keeps the government in check, we can see this was never for suppressing insurrections, in fact, it was for just the opposite. If the government started to oppress, we the people were given the means to rise and throw the government out and put back in place one that guaranteed our freedoms that are enshrined in the constitution.

These facts regarding the Second Amendment never get publicized and are never mentioned in political discussions involving the National Rifle Association, its followers or members of Congress. Senators and representatives tread lightly on arms controls because of the votes the NRA controls.

No, these are not facts, these are liberal talking points, but you are giving your opinion as facts, you are not entitled to your own facts, nor do you have a right to claim your opinions are facts, even more, when your opinion is based on false claims.

The NRA is seen as the Devil by the left, but it is nothing of the sort, it is a organization set up by its members to protect their 2nd amendment rights, I would say that this writer is exactly why something like the NRA is so desperately needed, to give voice to the masses. We have the left trying to silence this voice, it is up to us to make sure it has our support.

Why is it so easy for we men to accept the NRA’s simplistic interpretation of the Second Amendment? It was actually easy for me to accept for a lot of years because I wanted to believe it.

The reason we accept it is because this is what our founders wanted. To try to rewrite history, ignore what the founders said, so we not only know what was written, but what was the intent, this is what you on the left are ignoring, and that we will NEVER ignore. Our belief is founded on facts; yours seems to be based on ignoring the historical evidence, why is that?

It has taken me a lot of years of dealing with lots of people to realize that we men have a primal warrior instinct. We are attracted to things that make us feel more powerful, whether it be a fast car, a powerful truck, a garden tractor or a weapon. I’ve seen the mildest man in the office rev up the engine of his sport car as he left the company parking lot.

And then comes the left’s attempt to emasculate all of us men. I like the way I am; this is how the creator made us, that you and feminist, most who seem to have a deep hatred of us men is uncomfortable with our nature has a problem with this, that is not my or the rest of us men’s problem.

See the source image

I will never apologize for what I am, I like holding doors open for women, buying my wife flowers, being in place to protect her and my family if needed. I love hunting and football, used to love to wrestle, now too old for this, but this is what makes up us. Nor will I ever allow another to shut me up by intimidation, yelling about toxic masculinity, I am what I am, don’t like it, move on.

Our male natural instinctive feelings are what anthropologists call genetic traits. They very often prevail over our intellectual logic just because feelings require less effort than intelligent thought. Regulations and police patrols are needed to control our primal warrior instincts on the highways. But don’t mess with those Second Amendment interpretations.

I am sorry, never heard such terrible leftist drivel in my life. Talk about a ladies man, this writer is basically trying to just turn into a lady, that is not what is to be desired. We were created with the drive to survive, to fight for what is ours, and to hunt, wrestle, our nature is built around that. To deny who we are is just stupid, but there are times when it needs to be controlled.

We would never allow a tiger being told it should be like the sheep, but this is what the left is trying to do to us men, it is time to put a halt to this. This is just more of the toxic masculinity nonsense the left is trying to force on us all.

It’s time to recognize that a gun in hand changes male personalities and make us more aggressive. It’s time to see the Second Amendment as an antique of the past.

We need to bypass the Second Amendment and the NRA and pass strict gun regulations to reverse that downward spiral of civility in our nation. Wake up America.

A gun does not change our personalities, it is simply a tool. Funny how you never hear this about other tools, such as hammers and knives, but then they are not what this narrative wishes to get rid of. We need to fight this, to let the left know, you keep your hands off our rights, if you are going to demand we respect yours, we then have a right to demand the same in reverse.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Author has studied Middle East History for the last 35 years, am a lifetime student of history. Has an interest in sports, tech, history and political events. Works as a Republican political commentator who looks at events from a conservative's perspective.

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.