SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed

Nancy Smith

Democrats, 'Party of Intellectuals,' Ignorant on the Second Amendment

February 27, 2018 - 6:00am

The Florida Democratic Party strikes me as a spotless leopard right now. Aren't these the folks who in 2016 called themselves the Party of Intellectuals and joined Hillary in crowing about their superiority to "deplorable" Republicans?

Then, why, when it comes to the Second Amendment, are they so blithely ignorant about American history?

Why do they blow raspberries at the "gun lobby" -- aka, the National Rifle Association -- when in any historical context, the NRA has more right than it has wrong?

 But on Monday, there they were again ... Senate Democrats continuing to hammer away at the "gun lobby" after their amendment to ban semi-automatic weapons failed to pass the Senate Rules Committee.

FDP Executive Director Juan Penalosa fired out an angry press statement after the meeting: "While teachers, students and activists watched on, Republicans ... once again proved to the world that (they) ... stand against the courageous efforts of Parkland students to put an end to mass shootings in Florida."

The FDP wants a ban on more than a dozen types of assault-style firearms and it's using the deadly actions of a cold-blooded killer who was hiding in plain sight for years, to play on the raw emotions of Parkland students and families and further its agenda.

Now, my husband and I never owned a gun and neither did any of our kids. But we always understood why our Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and it wasn't so we could hunt ducks and shoot clay targets.    

What happened that the Party of Intellectuals cares so little about historical accuracy? Maybe it doesn't really matter about the Bill of Rights anyway. It was written a long time ago in a textbook far, far away. 

If they want to believe "well-regulated militia" means the National Guard -- as the gun control crowd insists we interpret the Second Amendment -- who's going to look it up and prove us wrong?

We live in a world that has allowed history and the understanding of it to drown beneath a wave of other information. True, you don't have to know who's on a $100 bill to spend it. But the intellectuals and university eggheads know -- or, should -- exactly what drove our Founding Fathers to adopt the Second Amendment.

By all accounts, of all the powerful memories and emotions the Founding Fathers brought to the constitutional debates, none was stronger than their fear of standing armies. As David Young, author of "The Origin of the Second Amendment" observed: "The necessity of an armed populace, protection against disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces the government might raise were topics interspersed throughout the ratification period."

In other words, the Founding Fathers didn't want Americans powerless against their own government.

Read the James Madison Research Library and Information Center's "History: A Drafting and Ratification of the Bill of Rights in the Colonial Period." It's not as boring as it sounds and it explains perfectly that "In colonial times, the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ -- because this was the meaning of those words at that time.

"...Even if the opening words of the Amendment, 'A well regulated militia ...' somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting 'the right of the people to keep arms,' nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms."

Here's what Richard Henry Lee, a mentor to many who signed the Constitution, wrote on Jan. 25, 1788: “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves ... and include," according to the past and general usage of the states, 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, especially when young, how to use them."

There's no shortage of historical accounts of why the founders wanted us to bear arms.

A lot of Americans think fantasy baseball stats are more important than the timeline of the American Revolution. No one needs to remember the Proclamation Line of 1763 because Google can spit out the answer in a second on the Web. Only, who even cares to ask Google?

Try to imagine if one day the Left got its wish and the NRA board of directors suddenly “evolved” on gun rights. At a stroke they changed the focus of the "gun lobby" to gun safety, hunting, and target shooting; trap and skeet became more important than assault-weapons bans or concealed carry. Would America change?

Of course not.

Within days, millions of frustrated and angry gun owners would coalesce behind one or more competing organizations, the lobbying machinery would rebuild, and the country would be right back where it is today. Only thing is, a different organization would be leading the charge.

I keep trying to make this same point about the NRA and I will again here:

The NRA is powerful because it is an effective part of a larger community, because it persuasively expresses the will of its members and allies. It represents those who understand and adhere to the central truths of American “gun culture.” 

As our forefathers insisted, each American possesses an unalienable and inherent right of self-defense, a lawfully armed citizenry is a free citizenry, and no government ever constructed has merited the total trust of its people.

That's what the Second Amendment means.

The Left can challenge the NRA all it wants, but until it defeats those ideas, it will not transform American attitudes toward guns. Republicans, thank heaven, understand that. In the Left’s fight for gun control, the great bogeymen aren’t the leaders of the NRA or state and national Republican leadership, they’re the Founders of our country.

I support Gov. Rick Scott, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Republican leaders in the Legislature who look to limit the access of semi-assault weapons for minors and those, like Nikolas Cruz in Parkland, who never should have been near a deadly weapon.

Many organizations and people with hands-on power failed Cruz and the shooting victims. And I feel relieved that the Florida House has moved to scrutinize every last one of them. 


Reach Nancy Smith at or at 228-282-2423. Twitter: @NancyLBSmith


The new democrat party believes in a European style of constitution where you just change it as you go along. This year its the second amendment, in a few years down the road it's the first amendment, and so on and so forth.

When you believe in a "living constitution" the result is no historical context and the standards/rights are in the eye of the beholder to do with as they wish.

Self appointed, pseudo intellectuals. LOL!

Left ignorant ? I believe the writer should research her history. She gives the whitewashed version that makes America look good. The militias were formed for two reasons. Slave patrols, rounding up run-away slaves and killing rebellious ones.......killing Indians. Guns for individuals to defend themselves ? People did not keep guns in their homes. They were kept together in a community building because they would rust if kept in individual homes. Individual rights ? The pro gun people never seem to mention that their beloved constitution gave people the right to own slaves. What happened to those rights ? The Founding Fathers are held up as these brilliant men who set up this do***ent which should be unquestioned. These men came to this country and slaughtered millions of innocent natives and stole their land. Not satisfied, they stole Mexico and the Southwest from Mexico. They then built this country and their wealth on the backs of slaves. All of this was done at the point of a gun. Respect for this do***ent ? Why ?

Nobody kept guns at home, guns kept in a community building? Because of rust? In a comic book maybe, But yes, here that was and remains standard practice.

wrong wrong

Looks like you audience is getting on to you , Nancy. Looking for a job?

Of course the progs are ignorant of the 2nd Amendment. As with the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the rest of the Constitution, why study that which you've been taught to despise?

Your call for raising the minimum age of ***ault weapon purchases, while a tiny step forward to give the impression of finally "doing something" would have prevented few m*** shootings, nor will it prevent future m*** shootings. The vast majority of shooters were males between the ages of 20 and 49, and the younger shooters typically obtained the guns from their or their relatives households. Being shot with ***ault weapon's high velocity bullet does nine times the damage as a pistol, bullet which is why so few small victims survive, and which is why they uniquely among firearms have no place in self defense or hunting animals. Florida, needs treat them like machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, and every other type of military weapons; ban them from civilian use, for public safety. Keeping military weapons and ammunition out of the hands of civilians may upset those with a rich fantasy life of launching an armed attack against our law enforcement and military, but gun rights is not absolute right, as you, the NRA, and the gun manufacturers push. The 2008 Supreme Court decision allowed for reasonable gun regulation to protect the public good, and that has been upheld many times since.

I'm not sure that one party has any better record, or recommendation for that matter, on effective gun control. It's hard to know what the founding fathers intended. They were using muskets back then. As a veteran, I cannot imagine they would have wanted every citizen to have an AR-15, especially those with as many issues as Cruz. One of the biggest points your argument is lacking is a huge one. There are quite a few inconsistencies in our current gun laws. Cruz exploited a few of them in getting his AR-15. This problem with school shootings has been around for 20+ years now and politicians could have done a number of common sense things to make our schools safer. What did they do? Nothing. The NRA used to be about gun safety and responsible gun use. They are no longer. Check your history on that. They are simply an arm of the gun manufacturers lobby now. Republicans do not understand gun rights any more than Democrats. It is about money and votes. In that order. If you really think it is about anything else, you are just as bad as the blind sheep and their masters that have done nothing for better than 20 years now. The only reason something might get done this time is because there is genuine fear that people are fed up, and will vote them out. It is actually the best idea for both parties if exactly that were to happen...

They're not ignorant,they just don't like the constitution or the American way of life,

Since when did the American way of life include being subjected to random mass murders? Keep your handgun, your shotgun, your musket....but leave automatic weapons, canons, bazookas, howitzers, shoulder fired rockets, etc. in the hands of our armed forces. As for got me on that, I actually switched to GOP to vote for Donald in the primary, and voted for him in the general election for one reason: a change in foreign policy (I got exactly what I wanted), but he's turned out to be a grotesque blight on humanity, and most other yes, I was ignorant, and I'm back to being a Democrat.

There's so much wrong in the little you say. Maybe you should read the constitution counting the number of times T*** has violated it. You can stop when you reach one hundred. You will be no where close to the end.

Jack, you took the words out of my mouth. Thanks!!

You sound exactly like someone who would restrict Freedom of Speech. Given the 16th Century didn't have T.V; Radio; Cell Phones, and Al Gore's fabulous Internet invention, what restrictions do you think should be put on those devices? Aside from eliminating Conservative Programming, Religious broadcasting, and tightening the screws on Net Neutrality? Only because, people of your ilk know what's best for us ? The Constitution is void where prohibited by law ?

Look at the Amendments closely...They RESTRICT GOVERNMENT and how far it can go. "Shall make no Law...' "Shall NOT Infringe..." The Founders knew they needed to RESTRAIN GOVERNMENT, human nature being what it is.

They probably though that they HAD restricted government. (legislature, judicial system). They just didn't count on the present day republican't party.

America's "gun culture" - as expressed by the NRA - is not America. And your understanding of the "2nd Amendment" doesn't equate to the reality of "military style" weapons, magazines, and bullets in the hands of anyone and everyone who thinks they provide solutions to their own person problems or lack of personal "identity". Ask a veteran.

Your commentators misread your copy. I think it was well thought out. My father was an Army Chaplain who never owned, much less held, a gun. When I travel I have with one with me all the time.

This is the 21st century. Those 16th century ideas about gun ownership in a densely populated country are now outdated. The 2nd amendment needs to be updated.

You mean the nra who believes it is better to allow terrorists to buy guns than to lose the right of anyone not having that right.? Or that mentally ill can get them? That bump stocks are a right? ...... . That cop killer bullets be legal? ........ the list of stupid stuff goes on.......... To allow guns anywhere except the legislature?....? when will they allow anyone with a gun into the the governors mansion, legislature if they believe in it so much?........ Can you say hypocrites Nancy ? Most of the country want reasonable regulations on guns

Comments are now closed.

nancy smith

Opinion Poll

Should the Board of Education select Richard Corcoran as education commissioner?
Older pollsResults


Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.