Interesting and timely article. Your assertion that "Henry was not calling for war, but for armed self-defense against tyranny" reminds me of something that SCOTUS justices said about our Constitution. They explained that the true, profound meaning of the Second Amendment was not about merely keeping or merely bearing mere arms. It was about the right (and even the law of nature) of self-defense (or defence) and self-preservation. See, e.g., https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/some-scotus-originalists-are-intentionally?r=30ufvh
Tell me more about what you mean. What are your thoughts therefore on the 2nd Amendment? I love the fact that you reference "Bernard Bailyn, in his outstanding book, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.'" I adore Bailyn, especially his The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson. I am re-rereading it, by chance, right now.
In Duncan v. Bonta, the en banc Ninth Circuit, by a vote of 7-4, upheld California’s ban on the possession of large-capacity magazines. According to Judge Susan Graber’s majority opinion, “a large-capacity magazine is a device that, when attached to a semi-automatic firearm, allows a shooter to fire more than ten rounds without pausing.” These magazines have “little function in armed self-defense,” but are attractive to mass shooters: “Murderers who use large-capacity magazines need not pause between shots until they have fired 20, 30, or even 100 rounds.”
But what is really attracting attention the dissent by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, which has to be seen to be believed:
SCOTUS in Bruen and Heller convinced me that the Second Amendment isn't even about guns. It's all about self-defense and self-preservation. Makes sense. Even the Preamble speaks specifically about "defence" and "Welfare" of the people. So (as I addressed in the piece for which I provided a link) the Second Amendment secures, e.g., the right of women to preserve their health or safety in other respects.
Conversely, based on the same principle (self-preservation) it's perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment to regulate access to or activities using any weapon (or anything dangerous). Everybody--not just guys or girls with guns--has a right to self-preservation.
I find this to be a quite interesting argument. Not always, but almost always, there are two sides, or three, or four, to every issue. About guns, a constitutional article like that needs updating with the times. I believe that the best democracies adhere closely to constitutions, but also to Jefferson's concept of constitutions as living documents: "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…
Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
Jefferson said that--and a lot of other things that were really wrong. He subsequently agreed with Madison's view about that issue (and about nearly all aspects of our Constitution). Jefferson was right to listen to Madison. Madison was amazing!
Eli, I greatly appreciate Bailyn's book, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution." I wish I could tell him what he did. Bailyn helped me finally truly see what I thought I saw even earlier in The Federalist Papers and in our Constitution. Before Bailyn, I was missing the forest for the trees.
Anybody who reads Bailyn's book should start pretty nearly at the end. The part near the ending of Bailyn's Book (where readers should start) is the part that includes a poem that is at the ending of my piece "Of Minds and Men: Brown v. Board of Education"
Bailyn addressed principles that are essential to grasp when considering whether Americans still have (or still need) a "right of revolution." Long story short, Locke's "right of revolution" grew into (was supplanted by) the power of citizens as sovereigns. Such sovereignty was implicit in the self-evident truths and explicit principles, powers and purposes of government articulated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of our Declaration of Independence (and expressed even earlier and even more clearly in May 1776 in John Adams's resolution and preamble). Those same principles permeated our Constitution in ways that are simultaneously simple and obvious and obscured and magical. See, e.g., Might Versus Right (Powers Versus Rights) https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/might-versus-right-powers-versus?r=30ufvh
When you realize that the powers of the sovereign people are more important (and superior to) the rights of individuals, I think it's easy to see why we don't need to have any "right of revolution." See, e.g., "Why Are SCOTUS's Originalists Awful at Originalism?" See https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/why-are-scotuss-originalists-awful?r=30ufvh
You asked about my thoughts about the Second Amendment, so you might find this historical footnote interesting. I did. It's insightful about whether the Second Amendment pertains to firearms, alone.
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington knew that firearms were in dangerously short supply at the beginning of the war. They also knew that re-loading a musket or rifle required a frighteningly long time when the opposing line was only about 40 yards away (musket range). To compensate for all the above, Franklin and Washington recommended that the Continental Army supplement firearms with pikes, spears and bows and arrows. https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/bows-and-arrows-pikes-and-spears/
Let me suggest using more DATED REASONING to create some HISTORICAL DRAMA.
DEMOCRATIC messaging on Trump tends to be BORING, and RAMBLING, with low IMPACT on folks, in my opinion. On the other hand, TRUMP has impact DAILY, with crazy idea and dynamics.
When will DEMOCRATS wise up with SIMPLE and DYNAMIC messaging.
IDEA CONTESTS open to the public might help. TNX MCH Harry
Hi, are we perhaps not a good fit for constructive conversation? As you will see if you look back at my posts for the past few years, while I may have strong viewpoints on what is good for our democracy, and what is not, I am always respectful to my fellow citizens, including President Trump, who by no fault of his own is, in my belief, not good for democracy. I truly love my neighbors, and I treat them that way. So, if you want to comment here, I welcome you but only if you engage in constructive, kind dialogue meant to learn and share. We all have a lot to learn, and we need to come together as a nation. Thank you for your understanding.
Interesting and timely article. Your assertion that "Henry was not calling for war, but for armed self-defense against tyranny" reminds me of something that SCOTUS justices said about our Constitution. They explained that the true, profound meaning of the Second Amendment was not about merely keeping or merely bearing mere arms. It was about the right (and even the law of nature) of self-defense (or defence) and self-preservation. See, e.g., https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/some-scotus-originalists-are-intentionally?r=30ufvh
Tell me more about what you mean. What are your thoughts therefore on the 2nd Amendment? I love the fact that you reference "Bernard Bailyn, in his outstanding book, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.'" I adore Bailyn, especially his The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson. I am re-rereading it, by chance, right now.
Speaking of the Second Amendment.
In Duncan v. Bonta, the en banc Ninth Circuit, by a vote of 7-4, upheld California’s ban on the possession of large-capacity magazines. According to Judge Susan Graber’s majority opinion, “a large-capacity magazine is a device that, when attached to a semi-automatic firearm, allows a shooter to fire more than ten rounds without pausing.” These magazines have “little function in armed self-defense,” but are attractive to mass shooters: “Murderers who use large-capacity magazines need not pause between shots until they have fired 20, 30, or even 100 rounds.”
But what is really attracting attention the dissent by Judge Lawrence VanDyke, which has to be seen to be believed:
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/23-55805/opinion
SCOTUS in Bruen and Heller convinced me that the Second Amendment isn't even about guns. It's all about self-defense and self-preservation. Makes sense. Even the Preamble speaks specifically about "defence" and "Welfare" of the people. So (as I addressed in the piece for which I provided a link) the Second Amendment secures, e.g., the right of women to preserve their health or safety in other respects.
Conversely, based on the same principle (self-preservation) it's perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment to regulate access to or activities using any weapon (or anything dangerous). Everybody--not just guys or girls with guns--has a right to self-preservation.
I find this to be a quite interesting argument. Not always, but almost always, there are two sides, or three, or four, to every issue. About guns, a constitutional article like that needs updating with the times. I believe that the best democracies adhere closely to constitutions, but also to Jefferson's concept of constitutions as living documents: "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…
Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
Jefferson said that--and a lot of other things that were really wrong. He subsequently agreed with Madison's view about that issue (and about nearly all aspects of our Constitution). Jefferson was right to listen to Madison. Madison was amazing!
Eli, I greatly appreciate Bailyn's book, "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution." I wish I could tell him what he did. Bailyn helped me finally truly see what I thought I saw even earlier in The Federalist Papers and in our Constitution. Before Bailyn, I was missing the forest for the trees.
Anybody who reads Bailyn's book should start pretty nearly at the end. The part near the ending of Bailyn's Book (where readers should start) is the part that includes a poem that is at the ending of my piece "Of Minds and Men: Brown v. Board of Education"
https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/of-minds-and-men-brown-v-board-of?r=30ufvh
Bailyn addressed principles that are essential to grasp when considering whether Americans still have (or still need) a "right of revolution." Long story short, Locke's "right of revolution" grew into (was supplanted by) the power of citizens as sovereigns. Such sovereignty was implicit in the self-evident truths and explicit principles, powers and purposes of government articulated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of our Declaration of Independence (and expressed even earlier and even more clearly in May 1776 in John Adams's resolution and preamble). Those same principles permeated our Constitution in ways that are simultaneously simple and obvious and obscured and magical. See, e.g., Might Versus Right (Powers Versus Rights) https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/might-versus-right-powers-versus?r=30ufvh
When you realize that the powers of the sovereign people are more important (and superior to) the rights of individuals, I think it's easy to see why we don't need to have any "right of revolution." See, e.g., "Why Are SCOTUS's Originalists Awful at Originalism?" See https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/why-are-scotuss-originalists-awful?r=30ufvh
You asked about my thoughts about the Second Amendment, so you might find this historical footnote interesting. I did. It's insightful about whether the Second Amendment pertains to firearms, alone.
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington knew that firearms were in dangerously short supply at the beginning of the war. They also knew that re-loading a musket or rifle required a frighteningly long time when the opposing line was only about 40 yards away (musket range). To compensate for all the above, Franklin and Washington recommended that the Continental Army supplement firearms with pikes, spears and bows and arrows. https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/bows-and-arrows-pikes-and-spears/
ELI this is BRILLIANT!
Let me suggest using more DATED REASONING to create some HISTORICAL DRAMA.
DEMOCRATIC messaging on Trump tends to be BORING, and RAMBLING, with low IMPACT on folks, in my opinion. On the other hand, TRUMP has impact DAILY, with crazy idea and dynamics.
When will DEMOCRATS wise up with SIMPLE and DYNAMIC messaging.
IDEA CONTESTS open to the public might help. TNX MCH Harry
Hi, are we perhaps not a good fit for constructive conversation? As you will see if you look back at my posts for the past few years, while I may have strong viewpoints on what is good for our democracy, and what is not, I am always respectful to my fellow citizens, including President Trump, who by no fault of his own is, in my belief, not good for democracy. I truly love my neighbors, and I treat them that way. So, if you want to comment here, I welcome you but only if you engage in constructive, kind dialogue meant to learn and share. We all have a lot to learn, and we need to come together as a nation. Thank you for your understanding.