happened to see you on o’reilly’s show tonight. had not, honestly, heard of you before and considering the lack of depth of your remarks and your “progressive” orientation it is apparent why…
perhaps you should review he second amendment
danny roturra
Mr. Levine,
I heard your comments on the O’Reilly Factor and I am sure that you are not living in the real world. How could you say that we may not need the police, so we should not have to pay taxes to support law enforcement? That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. If there were no police on the streets for just one day the country would devolve into anarchy and then the military would have to take over that function. You would not be able to leave your home without being in fear for your life. There is no doubt that you must be some sort of sheltered intellectual that does not have a grasp on what really goes on out on the streets besides what you read or hear from the news media.
I have been a law enforcement officer for over 30 years, so there is nothing you can tell me to support your loony position.
I enjoyed watching your appearance on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor. I was very glad to see you reach for your pocket copy of our United States Constitution, however I did notice that your copy of our US Contstitution was very different than our actual Constitution.
You were introduced as a Constitutional Lawyer on Mr. O’Reilly’s show and as one you must always be very opinionated and vocal on such a sacred document. Therefore, I am sure that you will be interested at the opportunity to discuss, debate and argue your interpretation of all of the items contained within our Bill of Rights.
I hereby challenge you to a debate over our Second Amendment Rights anytime you may be available either in Washington D.C. or in New York City in front of any audience that you may choose at no cost to you. I will personally cover any/all necessary personal expenses incurred by you and one of your associates in order to attend any such debate. This is a friendly and personal correspondance which I sincerely hope that you intend to ponder, as I would enjoy educating you on your gross misinterpretation(s) of our Second Amendment Rights. I will send this correspondance to any news or media source that you may wish or I will keep it completely private if that is your wish. I respect your right to respond to my introduction and challenge by declining my offer in writing.
I promise a straightforward debate over whether our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms applies directly to “the people”. I am not an attorney and I will not offer any surprise whatsoever, I simply intend to teach you what they obviously misinformed you about in Law School….no pun intended; hear it from an average American who has taken the time and effort to study our US Constitution and who holds this sacred document as a blueprint to the greatest nation that the world has ever known.
Mr. Levine,
I watched you on O’Reilly tonight. I looked at my wife and said here is a disgrace from someone holding my name, Levine and naturally he is a typical Jew, a Liberal unlike a good Jew like myself. I couldn’t believe that you are a Constitutional attorney but then again Obama did similar work in school.
I would suggest you look at the 2nd Amendment and figure out why the Founders added it to the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment is a right as well as all the others. I would suggest you search the quotes of Thomas Jefferson. I have included some in this email. I wouldn’t doubt that you will be turned off by these quotes as they reflect American Exceptionalism. I teach my Grandkids these quotes and American history not revisionist history.
Some like Colin Powell why are so many people afraid of one man, Obama, and how can one man change the country. Do they not know what one man did to Germany in the 1930’s and what one man Lenin did to my Father’s homeland, Russia? I am prepared and this Jew will protect himself. I served 20 years in the US Army and retired as a Senior NCO and served in Vietnam. I know how to protect myself and do not trust any government. Things can change. I train my kids and Grandchildren what happened in the past and how to be prepared if it is repeated.
The government can come and take my M4 and other guns from my cold dead hands and I will take a few of them with me.
Sincerely,
Steve Levine
SFC, United States Army, Retired
Member, NRA, Gun Owners of America, Minuteman CDC, VFW
“These are the times that try Men’s souls, the Winter Soldier and Sunshine Patriot”
Second Amendment quotes from Founders
“I ASK, SIR, WHAT IS THE MILITIA? IT IS THE WHOLE PEOPLE…TO DISARM THE PEOPLE IS THE BEST AND MOST EFFECTUAL WAY TO ENSLAVE THEM.”—GEORGE MASON
“NO FREE MAN SHALL BE DEBARRED THE USE OF ARMS WITHIN HIS OWN LAND.”-THOMAS JEFFERSON
“ARMS IN THE HANDS OF CITIZENS MAY BE USED AT INDIVIDUAL DISCRETION…IN PRIVATE SELF DEFENSE.”-JOHN ADAMS
[THE CONSTITUTION PRESERVES] THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING ARMED WHICH AMERICANS POSSESS OVER THE PEOPLE OF ALMOST EVERY OTHER NATION… [WHERE] THE GOVERNMENTS ARE AFRAID TO TRUST THE PEOPLE WITH ARMS.”-JAMES MADISON
“LAWS THAT FORBID THE CARYING OF ARMS…DISARM ONLY THOSE WHO ARE NEITHER INCLINED NOR
DETERMINED TO COMMIT CRIMES…SUCH LAWS MAKE THINGS WORSE FOR THE ASSAULTED; THEY SERVE RATHER TO ENCOURAGE THAN TO PREVENT HOMICIDES, FOR AN UNARMED MAN MAY BE ATTACKED WITH GREATER CONFIDENCE THAN AN ARMED MAN.”-THOMAS JEFFERSON
“A MILITIA, WHEN PROPERLY FORMED, ARE IN FACT THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES…AND INCLUDE ALL MEN CAPABLE OF BEARING ARMS…TO PRESERVE LIBERTY IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ALWAYS POSSESS ARMS AND BE TAUGHT ALIKE…HOW TO USE THEM.”-RICHARD HENRY LEE, REVOLUTIONARY LEADER
“THE CONSTITUTION SHALL NEVER BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS FROM KEEPING THEIR OWN ARMS”-SAMUEL ADAMS, REVOLUTIONARY LEADER SONS OF LIBERTY
“It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
—Samuel Adams
“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” –James Madison
1. In my many years I have come to a
conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or
more is a congress.
— John Adams
“YOU NEED ONLY REFLECT THAT ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO GET YOURSELF A REPUTATION AS A DANGEREOUS CITIZEN THESE DAYS IS TO GO AROUND REPEATING THE VERY PHRASES WHICH OUR FOUNDING FATHERS USED IN THEIR STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE.”—CHARLES A. BEARD, AMERICAN HISTORIAN
“THEY THAT CAN GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY TO OBTAIN A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY.”—BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, AMERICAN PATRIOT
“THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS AND TYRANTS”—THOMAS JEFFERSON
You totally missed my point (perhaps because Bill O’Reilly was talking over me).
Bill said that we should be able to “opt-out” of buying health care because we may not need/want health care.
I said that everyone lives and dies and so everyone needs health care.
I said that would be like saying “I don’t want police and shouldn’t have to pay for it.”
My point was that’s a ridiculous argument.
We all need health care.
And we all need police.
And we, of course, have to pay for both.
In other words, I AGREE with you.
Now a true conservative would not want police because they consider it “socialist.” They support private police and private armies.
Not me. I support a police force and fire fighters and health care providers. I think we all should pay for all of them. Because you never know when you’ll need the police, a fire fighter, or a doctor. And none of us should be able to “opt out” of paying for them, thinking we’ll never need them.
I’m not sure how a comma wipes out the entire dependent clause “A Well-Regulated Militia Being Necessary to the Security of a Free State, . . .”
In your view, the Second Amendment is identical whether these words are included or not?
And so the words are superfluous?
I disagree. I don’t think the words of a Constitutional Amendment are superfluous.
I’m a strict constructionist and I think the words of our Constitution (particularly an Amendment!) have meaning.
I hope you will use intelligence and rationality in your response to me, but sadly, I don’t expect it, because you haven’t in your comment above. You’re all emotion.
You’re taking the fact that YOU REALLY LOVE GUNS and pretending that YOUR LOVE OF GUNS trumps law, logic, and the words of our sacred Constitution.
You may be surprised to know that I don’t believe in banning guns to any sane, non-felon, non-violent adult in America. I’m fine with individual gun rights, and gun licenses after a background check, even if such rights are not enshrined in the Constitution. And I believe the voice of the electorate should not be overturned by activist judges.
Now you can go ahead and call me names, if you like.
But calling me names — rather than responding with logical argument — only suggests you’re using emotion because you believe you can’t argue with me logically. It means your brain knows I’m right, even if your heart can’t fathom it.
So please calm down and give me a rational argument, and I will respond.
Or you can call me names again and enjoy your rant. I’ll publish it because I believe in freedom of speech, but I’ll just assume you’re unbalanced and not take the time to respond further.
Looks like our Founders truly supported (as do I) a well-regulated militia!
But do you really think an armed citizenry could put down today’s military, armed with tanks? If not, what is the real purpose of the Second Amendment?
Or do you think that every American should also have the right to bear a nuclear “dirty bomb” in a suitcase or anthrax spores?
Do you agree that there can be reasonable gun regulation? If so, where is that in the Constitution? Shouldn’t we let the People, through our elected representatives, decide what is reasonable?
Thank you for taking the time to address my letters to you this evening, I was truly enlightened at the prospect that during your busy day you actually provided me with a very quick response ! After reading your responses and quite satisfied that you were very gracious to debate me as long as I covered your expenses to/fro the said debate(which I did offer) and for your honesty stating that I should feel free to use my own money to promote any such event, If I had wished(which I did NOT offer);failed to be published on this blog !?! How odd? What you did publish was an obvious ignorant response of “…please no guns in the auditorium so I feel safe” Just when I thought that there was a gleam of pride and spirit in the “Progressive” agenda out there,you reverted back to silly nonsense and unworthy rhetoric. That statement on your behalf certainly proves my point, which, is a shame because you could have learned the real meaning of our Second Amendment Rights, which “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” !!!
The sadest part of reality is that you and all of those like you who are both misinformed, and therefore, ignorant; are destroying the young minds of America who are striving for knowledge. I am very sorry to say that you are no longer worth my time.
Good day to you sir, and God Bless you (as long as the term “God” doesn’t offend you).
No Mark, an armed citizen can’t go against our US Army as a Army retiree and war vet I know. However, who is to say that if a future of tyranny prevails the military, our military will not be on the side of civilians and stand up against the tyrannical forces in Washington DC and in so doing cause a military coup and in so doing reinstate freedom and Liberty. Imagine, our military supporting us partisans against the government. It can happen, do not underestimate our forces and where their loyalty lies. Loyalty to the people and the Constitution. I know soldiers and officers and how they feel. You do not.
What say you?
Sincerely,
Steve Levine
SFC, United States Army, Ret
I didn’t think the details of your debate offer were relevant to the blog. It’s true that you graciously agreed to cover my expenses, but that neither you or I were willing to spend time or dollars promoting such an event. Ah well. Such is life.
Many public events involving public figures have metal detectors to protect those doing the debate. Heck, today, even concert stadiums do. And certainly any public forum involving the President or Members of Congress or the Supreme Court disallows guns by those attendance. I don’t think you have a constitutional right to bear arms in a venue where you could shoot the President. Do you?
When the debate topic is guns–and you and I both know how easy it is for violent insane people to get his/her hands on a gun–I wish to protect my safety.
If only reasonable gun regulation prohibited insane violent felons from obtaining guns, perhaps I would feel more safe in a public debate on guns without a metal detector. Would you also deny me a bullet-proof vest?
I say, Steve Levine, that I don’t support military coups. I support dealing with tyranny in the constitutional fashion, with impeachment, if necessary. And if there’s such tyranny that a President, for example, refuses to leave office after impeachment, then I’m confident the military will support the constituionally-eligible President.
But I don’t believe in disarming the military. I believe in well-regulated (and constitutionally protected) militias!
I only believe in disarming violent felons and insane individuals. Do you agree with me? Or do you think that violent insane felons also have a constitutional right to bear arms?
Wow !! You are really “Out there” aren’t you? If you feel the need to defend yourself….here’s irony for you..”Get a Gun”. Also, I was indeed very willing to spend my own money to debate you until you blatantly exposed yourself as ignorant. If you knew your law you would understand that there are already inumerable laws on the books that prohibit violent felons from obtaining guns; I guess they didn’t teach you that in law school?
Also, If you are suggesting that I am icluded in that last demographic, you are sorely mistaken. Please stop using ridiculous tactics for effect…it is not becoming of you or anyone else for that matter.
Mr. Levine,
I am so glad that you and Penny Lee were on O’Reilly tonight. It reinforced to all right-thinking Americans how “progressives” bastardize the true meaning of our constitution.
You made a fool of yourself…please come back so we can know how our real enemies “think”.
The laws prohibiting violent felons from owning guns are vitiated by the “Gun Show Loophole.” Surely, you know about that, Nicholas? It allows any violent felon who wants a gun to waltz into a gun show and buy a gun without a background check. The National Rifle Association has spent millions of dollars on politicians to keep that loophole open.
Do you support the NRA? Or do you believe the restriction on violent felons to be a good one and are therefore willing to close the Gun Show Loophole?
Second:
If you truly believe there is an unrestricted constitutional right for every American to “bear arms,” then you must know there is no “felon restriction” in the Constitution. If the right is unrestricted, then violent felons, like any other citizen, have the right to exercise it.
And if the right is restricted (despite no Constitutional language of restriction other than the preface on Militias), who is to determine that restriction, the People? Or unelected judicial activists? If the right is restricted, I prefer that the People decide, rather than have judge-made laws. Don’t you?
Third:
The clear language of the Second Amendment only protects the people’s right to bear arms in a “well-regulated Militia.” That was the interpretation of every court in America for more than 200 years before five men on the Supreme Court unilaterally changed it. If you don’t accept my interpretation — and the wisdom of 200 years and the dissenting four justices — then you have to answer the more difficult questions posed as First and Second above.
As you see, Nicholas, debating me isn’t easy, because law and logic are against you, even if five unelected judges, like you, are determined to change the law against the wishes of the majority of the People and their elected representatives.
I’m a strict constructionist. I oppose judicial activism and revere the rule of law. Therefore I believe the Constitution should be respected and that every word in it has meaning.
It’s funny to me, because all I get from the gun nuts is insults.
If any one of you thought I was wrong on the Constitution, you would give me REASONS. Since none of you apparently knows your Constitution well enough–or has a single legal reason to disagree with my strict construction of the Second Amendment according to the language thereof–all you provide is insults.
That’s proof positive that every single one of you knows I’m right on the Constitution.
After all, if anyone of you could disprove the basic obvious point that the words in the Second Amendment have MEANING, you would do so.
If you can’t prove someone wrong and you feel impotent before someone you know to be accurate but you wish were not, you throw a temper tantrum and call people you know to be right “f*cking morons.”
But I can take it. As long as you don’t pull a gun on me, I can handle your verbal abuse/nonsense.
One day, I hope one of you can come to me with the only real “arms” of this debate: Canons of Constitutional interpretation, i.e. a logical reason for your argument.
But y’all are all emotion. WE LOVE OUR GUNS. THEREFORE IT MUST BE IN THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE WE SAID SO AND IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU’RE A MORON OR WE’LL KILL YOU.
That is the logic of mob violence. It is not the logic of moral or intellectual or legal reasoning.
Come at me with an argument and I’ll respect you.
Come at me with an insult and I’ll just laugh and pity you for being unable to construct a logical argument.
Mark
you asked me for a response…I sent you a long one on this issue and your response to me. I guess it was so good that you elected not to print it here.
YOur 2nd Ammendment position, why ar eyou having a problem, did you not hear the Supreme Ct ruling last year…breaking news…it’s an individual right…get on with life. Although your side almost won the premise that it’s not an individual right with a close 5 to 4 vote. Four progressives (a polite word for socialists hell bent on destroying our constitution by creating law from the bench) voting against the individual right. Thank God for Geo Bush nominating Constitionalist who can read and understand the Founders written words that are very clear. Cancel one of your tv appearances and Read them some time.
Your written position by e mail to me that you are fine with individual gun rights …I know how you on the left think…you would then put into place 45 hoops to jump through if one desires a gun. And each hoop is monotored by a gvt employee with a fee and each gvt office (hoop) is located in 45 corners spread around the State.
YOu talk about rights not enshrined in the Constitution…Why don’t you tell Obama and Democrats about just that. How dare this adminstration with your support, mandate that people buy insurance, and if not you will be arrested. The left just loves to violate the constitution granting yourselves powers that are not their. I guess that is what Obama ment when he said that “” the Constitution had too many negative rights”" Ya still like this Socialist in the White House ????
And, NO politician gave us the right of self defense and freedom..WE WERE BORN WITH THEM.
To own a firearm is to affairm that you value life.
If you feel it reprehensible to possess the means necessary to use lethal force against a violent attack, how can you ask another (police) to come to your aid and possibly give up his life to defend yours???
When I read the framers own words of record on the 2nd Ammendment, (and there are MANY of them on record) confirming that it is an individual right
Your many statements to Bill O… that many Court rulings confirms that it is not an individual right. How can you with a straight face on TV.
I know the answer.. when you told Bill O that courts ruled aginst an individual right…yep it was true…it was some local and a few apellat courts with progressive judges hell bent on destroying the 2nd Amendment. So you get to state the truth on that question BUT not the whole truth that those decisions from a few progressive judgea did NOT stand up to the higher court.
By you trying to push the idea that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right but in the same breadth saying you are fine with individual gun rights, it’s taking both sides…Ya can’t do that Mark. It’s one or the other when your on national tv. I’d have more respect for you if you just said….I’m a firm beliver that the 2nd Amendment does not grant an individual right, and follow through with …and I don’t think that any individual should own guns. I would not like your position, but I’d have more respect for you having a conviction and not taking both sides like you did in your e mail response to me.
How is it that people can come to believe that individual gun rights cannot be restrained and that a right to defend yourself with a gun to defend ones life by killing said persons threat is a Right. Yet a woman that has her life threatened by pregnancy complications (of matters of life and death) has absolutely NO right to defend her life with an abortion?
Mark,
In your opinion are these comments of the Factor viewers typical of the BillO/Beck, FOX viewers in general?
After reading their comments, it seems they think you are in some sort of conspiracy cahoots with Obama to come and collect their guns. They have been propagandized into believing this.
Remember when Obama won the election, and so many guns were being sold and every guns owner was making runs on stores for ammo (by far more than making runs on banks for their money). This was because they were being told Obama is coming for their guns and they feared the naked weakness of being a gunlessness person. They see every other American as a potential threat. Why is that?
You had one fellow comment on the Glenn Beck doctrine of, Progressives are evil and such. They fear an American who identifies him/herself politically with the Democratic party more than Terrorists. Not even sure they can determine the difference?
You are right about their resorting to personal derogatory language. From what I read above.
Even the fellow that offered the “debate any time any where” wasn’t honest in his offer. Obviously, he withdrew his debate offer perhaps because he realized his inadequacies because he is used to shouting down people when he discusses “his” 2nd Amendment.
What is it that mutes their ears or blinds them from reading your words that you have no problem with gun ownership and they cab’t come to agreement with you theat a muderer in prison doesn’t have a right to bear arms?
I have been told I am “unAmerican, had my patriotism questioned by Bush loyalists, had the shout down, name calling attempted because I had disagreements with the Bush Adm and its actions.
They had no idea I too serve quite some time in the military and fought in war as well. That no respect would be given by some of these (hero types( that never served themselves) some that served themselves think thet’re service is somehow greater than yours. Why do they think they are the chosen ones that are allowed to pick and choose which are laws and who is American?
I leave you with this,
A man named Voltaire once opined,
” A true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it “.
And I would add;
“In logic, any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not allow from them necessarily”
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:20 pm
happened to see you on o’reilly’s show tonight. had not, honestly, heard of you before and considering the lack of depth of your remarks and your “progressive” orientation it is apparent why…
perhaps you should review he second amendment
danny roturra
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Mr. Levine,
I heard your comments on the O’Reilly Factor and I am sure that you are not living in the real world. How could you say that we may not need the police, so we should not have to pay taxes to support law enforcement? That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. If there were no police on the streets for just one day the country would devolve into anarchy and then the military would have to take over that function. You would not be able to leave your home without being in fear for your life. There is no doubt that you must be some sort of sheltered intellectual that does not have a grasp on what really goes on out on the streets besides what you read or hear from the news media.
I have been a law enforcement officer for over 30 years, so there is nothing you can tell me to support your loony position.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Dear Mr. Levine,
I enjoyed watching your appearance on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor. I was very glad to see you reach for your pocket copy of our United States Constitution, however I did notice that your copy of our US Contstitution was very different than our actual Constitution.
You were introduced as a Constitutional Lawyer on Mr. O’Reilly’s show and as one you must always be very opinionated and vocal on such a sacred document. Therefore, I am sure that you will be interested at the opportunity to discuss, debate and argue your interpretation of all of the items contained within our Bill of Rights.
I hereby challenge you to a debate over our Second Amendment Rights anytime you may be available either in Washington D.C. or in New York City in front of any audience that you may choose at no cost to you. I will personally cover any/all necessary personal expenses incurred by you and one of your associates in order to attend any such debate. This is a friendly and personal correspondance which I sincerely hope that you intend to ponder, as I would enjoy educating you on your gross misinterpretation(s) of our Second Amendment Rights. I will send this correspondance to any news or media source that you may wish or I will keep it completely private if that is your wish. I respect your right to respond to my introduction and challenge by declining my offer in writing.
I promise a straightforward debate over whether our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms applies directly to “the people”. I am not an attorney and I will not offer any surprise whatsoever, I simply intend to teach you what they obviously misinformed you about in Law School….no pun intended; hear it from an average American who has taken the time and effort to study our US Constitution and who holds this sacred document as a blueprint to the greatest nation that the world has ever known.
Please feel free to contact me anytime,
Sincerely yours,
Nicholas DeMaria
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:12 pm
You’re an ignorant sob on the 2nd amendment
Michael Savage was right when he titled his best seller
Liberalism is a MENTAL disorder
You don’t even know what a COMMA means in a sentence
The militia you referred to was a gvt militia enacted in the early 1900’s not the peoples militia of the 1700’s
No wonder nbc,abc,msnbc,cbs….are going broke…no one’s watching you LYING ASSES
You guys on the left…obama,reid,nancy P….you are destroying America
Take your 2500 page gvt take over of health care and shove it up your ass.
You are destroying Capitalism and our dollar’s value
You are all SICK people
And when questioned on shows like Bills and Shawns it shows your stupidity No wonder ya all hate to go on their programs.
And this president is the biggest lying piece of shit I have ever seen in my 62 years of life.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Mr. Levine,
I watched you on O’Reilly tonight. I looked at my wife and said here is a disgrace from someone holding my name, Levine and naturally he is a typical Jew, a Liberal unlike a good Jew like myself. I couldn’t believe that you are a Constitutional attorney but then again Obama did similar work in school.
I would suggest you look at the 2nd Amendment and figure out why the Founders added it to the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment is a right as well as all the others. I would suggest you search the quotes of Thomas Jefferson. I have included some in this email. I wouldn’t doubt that you will be turned off by these quotes as they reflect American Exceptionalism. I teach my Grandkids these quotes and American history not revisionist history.
Some like Colin Powell why are so many people afraid of one man, Obama, and how can one man change the country. Do they not know what one man did to Germany in the 1930’s and what one man Lenin did to my Father’s homeland, Russia? I am prepared and this Jew will protect himself. I served 20 years in the US Army and retired as a Senior NCO and served in Vietnam. I know how to protect myself and do not trust any government. Things can change. I train my kids and Grandchildren what happened in the past and how to be prepared if it is repeated.
The government can come and take my M4 and other guns from my cold dead hands and I will take a few of them with me.
Sincerely,
Steve Levine
SFC, United States Army, Retired
Member, NRA, Gun Owners of America, Minuteman CDC, VFW
“These are the times that try Men’s souls, the Winter Soldier and Sunshine Patriot”
Second Amendment quotes from Founders
“I ASK, SIR, WHAT IS THE MILITIA? IT IS THE WHOLE PEOPLE…TO DISARM THE PEOPLE IS THE BEST AND MOST EFFECTUAL WAY TO ENSLAVE THEM.”—GEORGE MASON
“NO FREE MAN SHALL BE DEBARRED THE USE OF ARMS WITHIN HIS OWN LAND.”-THOMAS JEFFERSON
“ARMS IN THE HANDS OF CITIZENS MAY BE USED AT INDIVIDUAL DISCRETION…IN PRIVATE SELF DEFENSE.”-JOHN ADAMS
[THE CONSTITUTION PRESERVES] THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING ARMED WHICH AMERICANS POSSESS OVER THE PEOPLE OF ALMOST EVERY OTHER NATION… [WHERE] THE GOVERNMENTS ARE AFRAID TO TRUST THE PEOPLE WITH ARMS.”-JAMES MADISON
“LAWS THAT FORBID THE CARYING OF ARMS…DISARM ONLY THOSE WHO ARE NEITHER INCLINED NOR
DETERMINED TO COMMIT CRIMES…SUCH LAWS MAKE THINGS WORSE FOR THE ASSAULTED; THEY SERVE RATHER TO ENCOURAGE THAN TO PREVENT HOMICIDES, FOR AN UNARMED MAN MAY BE ATTACKED WITH GREATER CONFIDENCE THAN AN ARMED MAN.”-THOMAS JEFFERSON
“A MILITIA, WHEN PROPERLY FORMED, ARE IN FACT THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES…AND INCLUDE ALL MEN CAPABLE OF BEARING ARMS…TO PRESERVE LIBERTY IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ALWAYS POSSESS ARMS AND BE TAUGHT ALIKE…HOW TO USE THEM.”-RICHARD HENRY LEE, REVOLUTIONARY LEADER
“THE CONSTITUTION SHALL NEVER BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS FROM KEEPING THEIR OWN ARMS”-SAMUEL ADAMS, REVOLUTIONARY LEADER SONS OF LIBERTY
“It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
—Samuel Adams
“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” –James Madison
1. In my many years I have come to a
conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or
more is a congress.
— John Adams
“YOU NEED ONLY REFLECT THAT ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO GET YOURSELF A REPUTATION AS A DANGEREOUS CITIZEN THESE DAYS IS TO GO AROUND REPEATING THE VERY PHRASES WHICH OUR FOUNDING FATHERS USED IN THEIR STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE.”—CHARLES A. BEARD, AMERICAN HISTORIAN
“THEY THAT CAN GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY TO OBTAIN A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY.”—BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, AMERICAN PATRIOT
“THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS AND TYRANTS”—THOMAS JEFFERSON
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Wow, John B.
You totally missed my point (perhaps because Bill O’Reilly was talking over me).
Bill said that we should be able to “opt-out” of buying health care because we may not need/want health care.
I said that everyone lives and dies and so everyone needs health care.
I said that would be like saying “I don’t want police and shouldn’t have to pay for it.”
My point was that’s a ridiculous argument.
We all need health care.
And we all need police.
And we, of course, have to pay for both.
In other words, I AGREE with you.
Now a true conservative would not want police because they consider it “socialist.” They support private police and private armies.
Not me. I support a police force and fire fighters and health care providers. I think we all should pay for all of them. Because you never know when you’ll need the police, a fire fighter, or a doctor. And none of us should be able to “opt out” of paying for them, thinking we’ll never need them.
So you and I are on the same side.
Thanks for taking the time to write.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Nicholas,
Debate on the Second Amendment?
Sure! Any time. Any where. Bring it on!
(but no guns allowed in the auditorium for my safety. OK?)
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Danny,
I know it by heart.
And I promise never to ever argue against a well-regulated militia.
Thanks for writing.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Ron,
I’m not sure how a comma wipes out the entire dependent clause “A Well-Regulated Militia Being Necessary to the Security of a Free State, . . .”
In your view, the Second Amendment is identical whether these words are included or not?
And so the words are superfluous?
I disagree. I don’t think the words of a Constitutional Amendment are superfluous.
I’m a strict constructionist and I think the words of our Constitution (particularly an Amendment!) have meaning.
I hope you will use intelligence and rationality in your response to me, but sadly, I don’t expect it, because you haven’t in your comment above. You’re all emotion.
You’re taking the fact that YOU REALLY LOVE GUNS and pretending that YOUR LOVE OF GUNS trumps law, logic, and the words of our sacred Constitution.
You may be surprised to know that I don’t believe in banning guns to any sane, non-felon, non-violent adult in America. I’m fine with individual gun rights, and gun licenses after a background check, even if such rights are not enshrined in the Constitution. And I believe the voice of the electorate should not be overturned by activist judges.
Now you can go ahead and call me names, if you like.
But calling me names — rather than responding with logical argument — only suggests you’re using emotion because you believe you can’t argue with me logically. It means your brain knows I’m right, even if your heart can’t fathom it.
So please calm down and give me a rational argument, and I will respond.
Or you can call me names again and enjoy your rant. I’ll publish it because I believe in freedom of speech, but I’ll just assume you’re unbalanced and not take the time to respond further.
Fair enough?
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Steve Levine,
Looks like our Founders truly supported (as do I) a well-regulated militia!
But do you really think an armed citizenry could put down today’s military, armed with tanks? If not, what is the real purpose of the Second Amendment?
Or do you think that every American should also have the right to bear a nuclear “dirty bomb” in a suitcase or anthrax spores?
Do you agree that there can be reasonable gun regulation? If so, where is that in the Constitution? Shouldn’t we let the People, through our elected representatives, decide what is reasonable?
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Dear Mr. Levine,
Thank you for taking the time to address my letters to you this evening, I was truly enlightened at the prospect that during your busy day you actually provided me with a very quick response ! After reading your responses and quite satisfied that you were very gracious to debate me as long as I covered your expenses to/fro the said debate(which I did offer) and for your honesty stating that I should feel free to use my own money to promote any such event, If I had wished(which I did NOT offer);failed to be published on this blog !?! How odd? What you did publish was an obvious ignorant response of “…please no guns in the auditorium so I feel safe” Just when I thought that there was a gleam of pride and spirit in the “Progressive” agenda out there,you reverted back to silly nonsense and unworthy rhetoric. That statement on your behalf certainly proves my point, which, is a shame because you could have learned the real meaning of our Second Amendment Rights, which “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” !!!
The sadest part of reality is that you and all of those like you who are both misinformed, and therefore, ignorant; are destroying the young minds of America who are striving for knowledge. I am very sorry to say that you are no longer worth my time.
Good day to you sir, and God Bless you (as long as the term “God” doesn’t offend you).
Thank you,
Nicholas DeMaria
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:58 pm
No Mark, an armed citizen can’t go against our US Army as a Army retiree and war vet I know. However, who is to say that if a future of tyranny prevails the military, our military will not be on the side of civilians and stand up against the tyrannical forces in Washington DC and in so doing cause a military coup and in so doing reinstate freedom and Liberty. Imagine, our military supporting us partisans against the government. It can happen, do not underestimate our forces and where their loyalty lies. Loyalty to the people and the Constitution. I know soldiers and officers and how they feel. You do not.
What say you?
Sincerely,
Steve Levine
SFC, United States Army, Ret
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Nicholas,
I didn’t think the details of your debate offer were relevant to the blog. It’s true that you graciously agreed to cover my expenses, but that neither you or I were willing to spend time or dollars promoting such an event. Ah well. Such is life.
Many public events involving public figures have metal detectors to protect those doing the debate. Heck, today, even concert stadiums do. And certainly any public forum involving the President or Members of Congress or the Supreme Court disallows guns by those attendance. I don’t think you have a constitutional right to bear arms in a venue where you could shoot the President. Do you?
When the debate topic is guns–and you and I both know how easy it is for violent insane people to get his/her hands on a gun–I wish to protect my safety.
If only reasonable gun regulation prohibited insane violent felons from obtaining guns, perhaps I would feel more safe in a public debate on guns without a metal detector. Would you also deny me a bullet-proof vest?
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:03 am
I say, Steve Levine, that I don’t support military coups. I support dealing with tyranny in the constitutional fashion, with impeachment, if necessary. And if there’s such tyranny that a President, for example, refuses to leave office after impeachment, then I’m confident the military will support the constituionally-eligible President.
But I don’t believe in disarming the military. I believe in well-regulated (and constitutionally protected) militias!
I only believe in disarming violent felons and insane individuals. Do you agree with me? Or do you think that violent insane felons also have a constitutional right to bear arms?
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:17 am
Dear Mr. Levine,
Wow !! You are really “Out there” aren’t you? If you feel the need to defend yourself….here’s irony for you..”Get a Gun”. Also, I was indeed very willing to spend my own money to debate you until you blatantly exposed yourself as ignorant. If you knew your law you would understand that there are already inumerable laws on the books that prohibit violent felons from obtaining guns; I guess they didn’t teach you that in law school?
Also, If you are suggesting that I am icluded in that last demographic, you are sorely mistaken. Please stop using ridiculous tactics for effect…it is not becoming of you or anyone else for that matter.
Best always,
Nicholas DeMaria
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:18 am
Mr. Levine,
I am so glad that you and Penny Lee were on O’Reilly tonight. It reinforced to all right-thinking Americans how “progressives” bastardize the true meaning of our constitution.
You made a fool of yourself…please come back so we can know how our real enemies “think”.
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:12 am
First:
The laws prohibiting violent felons from owning guns are vitiated by the “Gun Show Loophole.” Surely, you know about that, Nicholas? It allows any violent felon who wants a gun to waltz into a gun show and buy a gun without a background check. The National Rifle Association has spent millions of dollars on politicians to keep that loophole open.
Do you support the NRA? Or do you believe the restriction on violent felons to be a good one and are therefore willing to close the Gun Show Loophole?
Second:
If you truly believe there is an unrestricted constitutional right for every American to “bear arms,” then you must know there is no “felon restriction” in the Constitution. If the right is unrestricted, then violent felons, like any other citizen, have the right to exercise it.
And if the right is restricted (despite no Constitutional language of restriction other than the preface on Militias), who is to determine that restriction, the People? Or unelected judicial activists? If the right is restricted, I prefer that the People decide, rather than have judge-made laws. Don’t you?
Third:
The clear language of the Second Amendment only protects the people’s right to bear arms in a “well-regulated Militia.” That was the interpretation of every court in America for more than 200 years before five men on the Supreme Court unilaterally changed it. If you don’t accept my interpretation — and the wisdom of 200 years and the dissenting four justices — then you have to answer the more difficult questions posed as First and Second above.
As you see, Nicholas, debating me isn’t easy, because law and logic are against you, even if five unelected judges, like you, are determined to change the law against the wishes of the majority of the People and their elected representatives.
I’m a strict constructionist. I oppose judicial activism and revere the rule of law. Therefore I believe the Constitution should be respected and that every word in it has meaning.
Best to you,
Mark
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Dear Mr. Levine,
Debating you would be too easy for me. There is no help for you.
A final farewell…best always,
Nicholas DeMaria
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I heard you last night on O’Reilly. You are a f*cking moron.
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:38 pm
HI Mark,
Just read all the responses that you posted ref your position on the Bill O show.
Embarrassing … for you that is.,,
I’d recommend a Constitional course at Hillsdale….that should straighten you out on our Bill of Rights.
Ron S
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:33 pm
It’s funny to me, because all I get from the gun nuts is insults.
If any one of you thought I was wrong on the Constitution, you would give me REASONS. Since none of you apparently knows your Constitution well enough–or has a single legal reason to disagree with my strict construction of the Second Amendment according to the language thereof–all you provide is insults.
That’s proof positive that every single one of you knows I’m right on the Constitution.
After all, if anyone of you could disprove the basic obvious point that the words in the Second Amendment have MEANING, you would do so.
If you can’t prove someone wrong and you feel impotent before someone you know to be accurate but you wish were not, you throw a temper tantrum and call people you know to be right “f*cking morons.”
But I can take it. As long as you don’t pull a gun on me, I can handle your verbal abuse/nonsense.
One day, I hope one of you can come to me with the only real “arms” of this debate: Canons of Constitutional interpretation, i.e. a logical reason for your argument.
But y’all are all emotion. WE LOVE OUR GUNS. THEREFORE IT MUST BE IN THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE WE SAID SO AND IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU’RE A MORON OR WE’LL KILL YOU.
That is the logic of mob violence. It is not the logic of moral or intellectual or legal reasoning.
Come at me with an argument and I’ll respect you.
Come at me with an insult and I’ll just laugh and pity you for being unable to construct a logical argument.
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:58 pm
It was like your mouth was moving and no sound was coming out.
And you are still a f*cking idiot.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Mark
you asked me for a response…I sent you a long one on this issue and your response to me. I guess it was so good that you elected not to print it here.
I sent it March 3rd at 10:29pm
Where is it Mark???
Ron S
March 4th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Mark,
YOu have more of a problem with liberal nutty professors that do not get tenure.
Watch out for those lefties Mark…they carry guns and use them when they don’t get their way.
Ron s
S
March 5th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
LOL. Ron, if you want to publish it here, go right ahead. This is the place to question/challenge me on issues, not private email.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Mark
REF your Bill O appearance and e mail to me.
YOur 2nd Ammendment position, why ar eyou having a problem, did you not hear the Supreme Ct ruling last year…breaking news…it’s an individual right…get on with life. Although your side almost won the premise that it’s not an individual right with a close 5 to 4 vote. Four progressives (a polite word for socialists hell bent on destroying our constitution by creating law from the bench) voting against the individual right. Thank God for Geo Bush nominating Constitionalist who can read and understand the Founders written words that are very clear. Cancel one of your tv appearances and Read them some time.
Your written position by e mail to me that you are fine with individual gun rights …I know how you on the left think…you would then put into place 45 hoops to jump through if one desires a gun. And each hoop is monotored by a gvt employee with a fee and each gvt office (hoop) is located in 45 corners spread around the State.
YOu talk about rights not enshrined in the Constitution…Why don’t you tell Obama and Democrats about just that. How dare this adminstration with your support, mandate that people buy insurance, and if not you will be arrested. The left just loves to violate the constitution granting yourselves powers that are not their. I guess that is what Obama ment when he said that “” the Constitution had too many negative rights”" Ya still like this Socialist in the White House ????
And, NO politician gave us the right of self defense and freedom..WE WERE BORN WITH THEM.
To own a firearm is to affairm that you value life.
If you feel it reprehensible to possess the means necessary to use lethal force against a violent attack, how can you ask another (police) to come to your aid and possibly give up his life to defend yours???
When I read the framers own words of record on the 2nd Ammendment, (and there are MANY of them on record) confirming that it is an individual right
Your many statements to Bill O… that many Court rulings confirms that it is not an individual right. How can you with a straight face on TV.
I know the answer.. when you told Bill O that courts ruled aginst an individual right…yep it was true…it was some local and a few apellat courts with progressive judges hell bent on destroying the 2nd Amendment. So you get to state the truth on that question BUT not the whole truth that those decisions from a few progressive judgea did NOT stand up to the higher court.
By you trying to push the idea that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right but in the same breadth saying you are fine with individual gun rights, it’s taking both sides…Ya can’t do that Mark. It’s one or the other when your on national tv. I’d have more respect for you if you just said….I’m a firm beliver that the 2nd Amendment does not grant an individual right, and follow through with …and I don’t think that any individual should own guns. I would not like your position, but I’d have more respect for you having a conviction and not taking both sides like you did in your e mail response to me.
Sincerely
Ron S
March 21st, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Question,
How is it that people can come to believe that individual gun rights cannot be restrained and that a right to defend yourself with a gun to defend ones life by killing said persons threat is a Right. Yet a woman that has her life threatened by pregnancy complications (of matters of life and death) has absolutely NO right to defend her life with an abortion?
March 21st, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Mark,
In your opinion are these comments of the Factor viewers typical of the BillO/Beck, FOX viewers in general?
After reading their comments, it seems they think you are in some sort of conspiracy cahoots with Obama to come and collect their guns. They have been propagandized into believing this.
Remember when Obama won the election, and so many guns were being sold and every guns owner was making runs on stores for ammo (by far more than making runs on banks for their money). This was because they were being told Obama is coming for their guns and they feared the naked weakness of being a gunlessness person. They see every other American as a potential threat. Why is that?
You had one fellow comment on the Glenn Beck doctrine of, Progressives are evil and such. They fear an American who identifies him/herself politically with the Democratic party more than Terrorists. Not even sure they can determine the difference?
You are right about their resorting to personal derogatory language. From what I read above.
Even the fellow that offered the “debate any time any where” wasn’t honest in his offer. Obviously, he withdrew his debate offer perhaps because he realized his inadequacies because he is used to shouting down people when he discusses “his” 2nd Amendment.
What is it that mutes their ears or blinds them from reading your words that you have no problem with gun ownership and they cab’t come to agreement with you theat a muderer in prison doesn’t have a right to bear arms?
I have been told I am “unAmerican, had my patriotism questioned by Bush loyalists, had the shout down, name calling attempted because I had disagreements with the Bush Adm and its actions.
They had no idea I too serve quite some time in the military and fought in war as well. That no respect would be given by some of these (hero types( that never served themselves) some that served themselves think thet’re service is somehow greater than yours. Why do they think they are the chosen ones that are allowed to pick and choose which are laws and who is American?
I leave you with this,
A man named Voltaire once opined,
” A true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it “.
And I would add;
“In logic, any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not allow from them necessarily”