In his book Proclaiming Liberty, Philip Mulivor has given us a series of “themes” that pretty much all anti-gun arguments must fall into. I’m a big believer in breaking things down into easy to understand elements. Philip has managed to give us an easy reference framework to anti-gun argument. All we need to do is determine which “theme” the gun grabbers are working in and we know how to proceed.
This week I’ll be taking a different theme each day and talking about it. Today, Theme #1
1. Gun prohibitionists reject Constitutional Originalism
The only really honest way to look at law is generally referred to as “originalism.” The basic theory is that a law means what it meant when it was originally passed. In order to determine what that means, one has to look at the original public meaning. What did everyone think it meant at the time. That’s important because if you try to use the modern meaning of words when interpreting law that’s over 200 years old, you’re bound to have a few conflicts.
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.
a. in proper working order (then)
b. strictly controlled by laws (now)
a. The whole body of the people trained to arms (then)
b. The National Guard (now, at least in the minds of the gun grabbers)
You can see the conflict.
It makes absolutely no sense to try to use the modern meanings of these words when trying to interpret what the Founders said when they wrote the Second Amendment, but that’s exactly what the gun grabbers do. They try to act like the Constitution’s meaning is different today than its meaning 200 years ago. They have to do that, otherwise they’ve lost the argument from the get-go.
Get your own copy of Proclaiming Liberty at Amazon. It’s only $12.95 with free two day shipping on Amazon Prime.
Do you RSS? Don’t know what an RSS Feed is?
Save time and read all the latest blog news first.