Sen. Chris Murphy is getting dragged over this tweet (and thread) where he’s trying to explain how “the 2nd Amendment is about collective, not personal defense.”
You're right, Ted, it's hard to do this issue justice on twitter, but I commend you for trying. Here's my side of the argument, on why the 2nd Amendment is about collective, not personal defense, and allows the government to reasonably condition firearms ownership. 1/x https://t.co/r3g42QnPGV
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
2/x First, you selectively quoted the Amendment. It actually reads: "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." It references militias – not personal defense – for a reason.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
3/x The founders were strongly opposed to America having a standing army. Madison called it an "instrument of tyranny". But a young America needed to defend itself. This is where militias come in, and the need to make sure citizens were armed in order to serve.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
4/x Nowhere in Madison's copious notes from the Constitutional Convention does he mention the 2nd Amendment being about the private right of gun ownership. And the term "bear arms", which today is connected with private gun ownership, back then was connected to militias.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
5/x So I don't think the 2nd Amendment is about protecting the right to defend your personal rights with a gun, but I DO believe that the founders did likely believe in a sort of common law right of gun ownership. That's also pretty clear from the history of the time.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
6/x But they also believed that government should be able to regulate that right. And it wasn't just about denying African-Americans the right to own guns. There were revolutionary era laws to register guns, control gun powder storage, prohibit concealed weapons, etc.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
7/x The founding fathers probably believed in a right for citizens to own guns (though not necessarily for the reasons you articulate). But they also definitely believed in the right of government to restrict the ability to own and operate weapons.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
8/x And that's where we are today. No Democrat is arguing to outlaw private gun ownership. But we do believe, as the founders did, that there should be reasonable limits on gun ownership. Like, some people are too dangerous to own guns, and a few guns are to dangerous to own.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) September 2, 2019
First up, let’s tackle the James Madison assertion in tweet No. 4. The reason for the lack of copious notes, of course, is that “it’s an Amendment and therefore didn’t exist until later”:
This United States Senator is not aware that Madison could not have taken notes on the Second Amendment at the Constitutional Convention because, well, it’s an Amendment, and therefore didn’t exist until later. These people make our laws. What a time. https://t.co/GGvBpTtght
— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) September 3, 2019
It is embarrassing, to say the least:
I have to believe you’re smart enough to know the gigantic flaws in your argument Chris. It shows an embarrassing lack of constitutional knowledge from a Senator. Are you just hoping to manipulate people who don’t know much about the constitution?
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 3, 2019
Since Sen. Murphy is a James Madison expert and all, maybe he’d like to answer this one?
Oh, and while we’re on Madison, you might ask yourself why, in 1789, he proposed putting the Second Amendment in Article I, Section 9, as an addition to the individual rights protections, and not in Article I, Section 8, clause 16. The answer is obvious. Enjoy your evening.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 3, 2019
But it doesn’t get any better for the Connecticut Dem who also seem ignorant of the Constitution of Connecticut:
You’re going to get the most almighty shock when you get around to reading the Constitution of Connecticut, which from the moment the state has had one, has held that “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State.” (1)
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 3, 2019
You’ll be equally shocked when you learn that the Philadelphia Constitution of 1776, which predates the Second Amendment, reads: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,” and does so in the same sentence it bars standing armies. (2)
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 3, 2019
And I can barely imagine the scale of your surprise when you learn that Madison didn’t take notes on the first ten amendments at the Convention because the first ten amendments were added later—at the behest of those who thought the enumerated powers doctrine would be abused. (3)
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 3, 2019
In essence, your position is that our reading of the Second Amendment is a modern mistake—that was made *before it was written* by Pennsylvania (and Vermont, which copied it literatim), and immediately afterwards by your own state, whose Constitution you have never read. (4/4)
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 3, 2019
***
Editor’s note: We’ve corrected an editing error in the headline.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member