Rep. Jamie Raskin: Rebutting the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment - Talking Feds

[Rhiannon12866]

In a special 1-on-1 taped before a live audience as part of the Talking San Diego series (www.talkingsandiego.net) , Harry sits down with Congressman Jamie Raskin to discuss a theory of Second Amendment rights that has proliferated in recent years, including support by elected officials such as Matt Gaetz.

That is an insurrectionary theory according to which the Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to use them against their own government when they perceive the government has become tyrannical. Raskin completely shreds the theory as a matter of history, text, and constitutional structure. He concludes that “the real Constitution rejects the right wing fantasy that random banks of disgruntled armed citizens can claim the powers of the constitutional militia.” - 12/12/2024.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Jamie Raskin is bedrock Constitutional interpretation

Just like Modern and American Political Thought classes in college. MAGA thought is developed and supported by intellectual midgets bent on their own agenda, or the agenda of their billionaire sponsors.

[wnylib]

2. Raskin would make an excellent Supreme Court justice.

But for now, we need him in the House. Would love to see him get more media exposure. We need to hear from rational people more often.

[usaf-vet]

3. I totally agree. Preferably, as the Chief Justice, at least to corral the justices who think they can make new laws.....

... out of whole cloth.

"Making something up out of whole cloth" means completely fabricating or inventing something with no basis in fact. It implies creating a story or idea from pure imagination with no truth or evidence to support it.

[Karadeniz]

4. The founding fathers advocated a perfect way to change the government and

laws, elections and legislation. Why would they include, in the same document, a means to disregard and demolish their system?

[J_William_Ryan]

5. "...when they perceive the government has become tyrannical."

Which illustrates the idiocy of insurrectionist dogma.

What the people might subjectively perceive to be ‘tyranny’ isn’t, particularly absent consensus via the political process.

And it was never the intent of the Framers to amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.