Quote of the day–Bryan Miller

But, first, a little background – for those of you who have more to do with your time than memorize old, obsolete and unused Constitutional dicta – the 2nd Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As I said, Ho Hum. How seriously must I (or anyone, for that matter) take a sentence so overwhelmingly categorical, yet which has never been used to overturn any gun regulation, ordinance or law in the 200-plus years since it was adopted?

Bryan Miller
November 29, 2007
Supremes take on 2nd Amendment – Yawn
[It’s overwhelmingly categorical and never been used to overturn a law since it was adopted, therefore we shouldn’t take it seriously and can enact laws that violate it without concern to the constitutionality of the law. Interesting logic. So, Mr. Miller, do you advocate treating the 13th amendment in the same way?

Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If so then I claim you, Bryan Miller, as my slave. Maybe then you will suddenly recognize the utility of the 2nd Amendment. Or maybe since the 13th amendment is only 142 years old it’s too recent to discard. If it needs to be 200-plus years old before we can start ignoring it then I’ll let my great-grandchildren know that your descendants gave up their 13th Amendment rights on your say so. As my descendants, with guns, take possession I’m sure your descendants will “thank” you for giving up your 2nd Amendment rights earlier. The point is that just because a law hasn’t been overturned recently the constitutional provision against such laws is obsolete.

And, Mr. Miller, it’s obvious you haven’t read this book which demonstrates the Supreme Court has upheld the legal tradition and historical record of private gun ownership, self defense, and armed self defense, since the country began.

My take on Miller’s “yawn” response is that is the best spin he can put on what he thinks is impending doom.–Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Bryan Miller

  1. Yes Bryan is lame. But would you have expected more from a narrow minded, liar. As he and his friends get exposed desperation starts. Realize we are on the right side, other than a handful of anti-freedom posters we Freedom Posters rule the web. The anti’s disappear quickly. Right Kelli…..


  2. I like this bit of his:
    “…it ain’t worth splitting a gut over – we’ll all survive, whatever.”

    OK, shrug it off. Stop railing against gun rights then if it’s such a yawner. Don’t split a gut. Leave honest, gun owning Americans alone. Let them have their right to defend themselves unmolested. If people have their rights upheld, you’ll survive, whatever. Don’t get so emotional about it, Uh, Dude.

    Bryan Miller may be able to ignore inconvenient sections of the U.S. Constitution, but our elected officials and law enforcement are sworn by solemn Oath to uphold it.

    Tell you what, Bryan, Dude, whatever, I’ll stop being emotional about upholding human rights the same day you and your ilk stop campaigning against them. In fact I’d like nothing better. I won’t force you to get a gun, and all you can leave gun owners alone and in peace. I would love to go on with my life never having to worry about my or my children’s rights and freedoms coming under attack. Deal?

  3. Dear Joe,

    Maybe I am stupid after all, but what does he mean by “categorical” and what does the Amendments being so have to do with why it can be ignored? Aren’t other amendments, and articles in the Constitution also “categorical?” What am I missing?


    Wade Jensen

  4. What I think he is trying to say is that since it is so broad, “shall not be infringed”, we must tone it down a little to make sense of it. It can’t possibly mean what it says. Therefore we are free to interpret it within our own present day context. The 4th isn’t quite so categorical. Search are not allowed unless there is warrant. But in general you are correct.

    I think the problem is that Miller cannot accept the possibility that the 2nd means what it actually says. Just like slave owners and their descendent’s in the south could not accept that blacks would be allowed full citizenship. It was simply unacceptable to “reasonable” people.

  5. Dear Joe,

    Thanks for your response. I see that I was failing to understand it as the author understood it, thus my utter confusion. Thanks for explicating for me. Also, thankyou for running this blog, and for bringing articles like this to the wider reading public’s attention. I would not have been aware of it had you not posted on it.

    Wade Jensen

Comments are closed.