5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Paul Barrett

  1. It seems there’s more chatter about the “need” to amend the 2nd Amendment.

    The problem for the antis is that this is an admission that the 2nd Amendment really is about an individual right to bear arms and that they have a problem with that… to such a degree that they’ll push for a constitutional amendment.

    On the… upside, it’s more honest about their contempt for the Bill of Rigths constraining the state and is a more honest method, legal procedure speaking, of imposing their will.

  2. Neil Smith points out that the Bill of Rights was the price extracted from the Federalists for having the Constitution ratified in the first place. Tamper with the Bill of Rights and you undermine the legitimacy of the whole Constitution.

    That goes for the 2nd amendment more than for any other.

    The other interesting point is that the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights does not grant the federal government any authority to regulate arms in private hands. It is nowhere to be found in Article 1 Section 8, and if it’s not there, it isn’t anywhere.

    • Ah, but the general welfare clause and commerce clause, together specifically grant the federal government absolute Devine authority to do anything it wants to anyone at any time.

      Do you ever breathe? Then you’re affecting interstate, and indeed global, commerce. Do you ever at any time need food or water or shelter? Then you are obviously a general welfare case. QED.

      Therefore your very life, and whether you should be allowed to live it, is clearly a matter of common interest (general welfare – same thing) as defined in the constitution. Progressives understood this by the very early years of the 20th century;

      • Well, the General Welfare clause only applies to the power to tax. But apart from that, one could always quote Madison, in Federalist 41, replying to the objection that the power to tax was unlimited because of the “general welfare” clause.

        Madison replied: “But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

        My view is that he was committing a snow job in that statement, but still, it’s in the Federalist Papers and that carries some weight.

  3. In all sorts of irony that quote starts with this:

    “For a significant minority of Americans, firearms represent individualism, independence, and self-reliance.”

    I’ve taken to challenging these assumptions. I was talking with a true believer where I was citing all the facts about gun ownership, crime rates, and freedom. She claimed I was 100% wrong and linked a few Joyce Foundation studies.

    I simply ended the conversation with: “Well if gun ownership is among a small minority of Americans, a large majority of Americans want more gun control, and increases in gun ownership leads to a rise in crime and accidental death, you should have an easy time passing any gun control laws you want.”

    Cocky little “Progressives” like this never seem to get to that “Put your money where your mouth is” part.

    They’re losing because they’re WRONG!

Comments are closed.