About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view gulleyd72's profile
    Posted May 28, 2014 by
    Berea, Kentucky
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Sound off

    Revisionist History: How the left gets it wrong on the Second Amendment

    The problem with Pierce Morgan’s view of the Second Amendment is that he never had an American civics class. Some of you may be familiar with the Federalist Papers. They are a group of essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius in support of the newly drafted constitution. Madison of course was the primary drafter of the constitution. Nine of the thirteen original colonies were needed to adopt it as per the constitutional text. In each of the essays one of the men would explain that section of the constitution and why it was important.

    In Federalist number 46 Madison explaining the second amendment writes.

    Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

    Now we truly know straight from the man who wrote the constitution what the second amendment means and even more importantly why it was important to the society that adopted it.

    The constitution is the supreme law of the land, the test which all federal and state law must pass. If a federal or state law is passed that is contrary to the constitutional text it is said to be unconstitutional. We can amend the constitution through a super majority of both houses of congress forming a constitutional committee or two thirds of the various states. But a mere act of congress CANNOT nullify the constitution. It’s unconstitutional.
    Add your Story Add your Story