It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
For those who haven't seen this article, or any like it, as they get buried in the slogans of a massive campaign to the contrary, this is a fascinating article on the history of the amendment so at the forefront today.

[Source]


The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.



The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”



Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.



Today at the NRA’s headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, oversized letters on the facade no longer refer to “marksmanship” and “safety.” Instead, the Second Amendment is emblazoned on a wall of the building’s lobby. Visitors might not notice that the text is incomplete. It reads:

“.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The first half—the part about the well regulated militia—has been edited out.


Also a fascinating look at how a few words out of context here, a few words out of context there can be used to outshout logic and regulation and override the intended and original meaning.

I don't know what the answer to the situation in this country, with its mass shootings, domestic violence, accidental deaths and the jumpiness of police is, but I still recognize that we have a problem and am getting very annoyed that this typically becomes the most loudly shouted defense to thousands of killings a year...your "rights" based on fallacy or revisionist history or lobbying.

Comments about and rebuttals to just the salient points in the article, please.



+20 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
'Nuff said.


+5 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
'Nuff said.




Nuff said? You added nothing on topic. Nor, unless you've read the article before or are a super speed reader, did you have time to read the four pages in the article.

Nuff said.


+7 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Oh, so you and the rest of the anti-gun crowd would be fine if the NRA became a well regulated militia? Whatever definition that is? Then would the anti-gun crowd start focusing on criminals who illegally own and commit crimes with illegal firearms and leave the law abiding gun owners in peace?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Oh, so you and the rest of the anti-gun crowd would be fine if the NRA became a well regulated militia? Whatever definition that is? Then would the anti-gun crowd start focusing on criminals who illegally own and commit crimes with illegal firearms and leave the law abiding gun owners in peace?


I own a gun.

As to your...er...points....

How many potential criminals are there out there? Among your law abiding gun owners? How many people are criminals before they commit that first criminal act...with as we've seen time and time again legal firearms.

ETA: Again, please spare me the spoon-fed pablum that's been pounded into your heads and spewed ad nauseum all over the forums on this site and actually discuss the article and information presented therein. I know that's very hard for some of you.
edit on 10/6/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I thought it was a no no to theorize what the founding fathers intended.


+20 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
The first half is explanatory, not conditional.

Nonetheless, what it's saying is that a populace that is well trained on the use of firearms is necessary for the security of a free nation. "well regulated" does not mean "a lot of gun control laws", it means "expert in the use of"


+7 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Oh, so you and the rest of the anti-gun crowd would be fine if the NRA became a well regulated militia? Whatever definition that is?


The definition is fairly simple. YOU are the militia. "Well regulated" means "expert in the use of" or "highly trained".


+10 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

The supreme court already many times has clarified the interpretation of the second amendment, is nothing else to talk about. But the stance the supreme court took on the subject, not the opinions of want to be gun banners.

Is not going to change no matter how many executive decisions Obama writes.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Well trained. Yeah. There's a point.

They were worried about things then. and that bit about all men from 6 to 60 and the 13 state-formed militias was interesting too.


originally posted by: Bluntone22
I thought it was a no no to theorize what the founding fathers intended.


Well, I, for one, found this eye-opening and didn't realize this push on the individual right to bear arms school of thought was so recent. And I believe I fell prey to much of the propaganda myself, so I want to hear more about the theory and the facts (or lack thereof) presented in this article.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity




How many potential criminals are there out there? Among your law abiding gun owners? How many people are criminals before they commit that first criminal act...with as we've seen time and time again legal firearms.


There is a very good reason they call us "law abiding gun owners"

www.gunfacts.info...

71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
64% had been convicted of a crime.
Each had an average of 11 prior arrests. 1, 2
63% of victims had criminal histories and 73% of that group knew their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories). 3
74% of homicides during the commission of a felony involve guns. 4



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Many times? Once, in the pivotal decision discussed in the article, since 1939.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
So you're mad the the NRA doesn't have the full quote inscribed at its offices? And how does that equate them "changing the second amendment"?

I also assume that you're against abortion as well? Considering it takes millions of American lives per year because of "rights, revisionist history and lobbying"


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
'Nuff said.




Nuff said? You added nothing on topic. Nor, unless you've read the article before or are a super speed reader, did you have time to read the four pages in the article.

Nuff said.

I thought you would debate my simple reply.
Simple, no?

I thought you might bring up the 'well regulated' part.
But this whole thing has been debated so many times.

I am a life member of the NRA, so I will take the blame for DC v Heller.

I will tell you the same thing I've told others... Grow some gonads and go collect all the guns.... or even just the ones that you don't like. But do it unarmed, just like you want all gun owners to be.
Don't rely on a hired govt goon to do it for you.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't know how many times I can say I want to discuss the topic of or the points brought up in the article.


a reply to: DAVID64

Off topic. But again, no one is a criminal until they become one.
edit on 10/6/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

And to think that we do have laws that covers every aspect in that list, now, why are they no enforced? but rather the government wants to create more laws.

In my personal opinion is that the goal of todays corporate government is to ban guns completely out of the hands of citizens regardless if they are fit or not to have them as the established laws guidelines.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
So you're mad the the NRA doesn't have the full quote inscribed at its offices? And how does that equate them "changing the second amendment"?

I also assume that you're against abortion as well? Considering it takes millions of American lives per year because of "rights, revisionist history and lobbying"


I'm mad?

Another who can't stay on topic. Sigh....



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Yes you're mad that they don't have the full quote at their offices. Maybe you should write them a letter to tell them your frustrations rather than making a clickbait thread.

edit on 6-10-2015 by avgguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: avgguy
So you're mad the the NRA doesn't have the full quote inscribed at its offices? And how does that equate them "changing the second amendment"?

I also assume that you're against abortion as well? Considering it takes millions of American lives per year because of "rights, revisionist history and lobbying"


I'm mad?

Another who can't stay on topic. Sigh....

Then why respond to the off topic posts? You are as guilty as the rest of us.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity


In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated. [UPDATE: In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed this issue, ruling that Second Amendment rights are applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.]


Two times before that. But it wasn't until our lifetime that the supreme court did their final interpretation, but they had rule before as you can see.

www.loc.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join