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: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
"Well regulated" in 18th century speak translated into 21st century speak means the FedGov is to provide training and range time to ALL it's citizens aged 17-45. All able-bodied male citizens aged 17-45 ARE BY DEFAULT in the unorganized militia. "Regulated" means to provide a means that the object or subject has control.

Hey Obama, when is my range time appointment with ammo and instructors you are mandated by the Constitution to provide?




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

They join the bandwagon after the latest supreme court ruling.

This how money and influences keep the gun owners from knowing what their most respected lobbyist group pro second amendment rights is really doing behind their backs

They keep the information of their dirty links off the news.


In 2012, the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and the New York Daily News published a total of 212 news stories that mentioned the NRA. An analysis of these articles reveals that these influential media outlets pay little attention to the close ties between the NRA and the gun makers., Among the 212 articles, only four (three in the New York Times and one in the Washington Post) note any link between the NRA and the $12 billion-a-year firearms industry. The study looked only at news stories, eliminating editorials, columns, op-eds, book reviews, and letters to the editor.

Most of the 212 articles give readers no clue about the organization's corporate ties. The articles -- typically stories about gun violence, gun legislation, or elections -- simply mention the NRA's name without explanation, perhaps assuming that readers already know whom the organization speaks for. This was the case for 43 of the 64 articles (67 percent) in the New York Times (67 percent), 55 out of 65 stories (85 percent) in the Washington Post, 21 of 29 articles (72 percent) in USA Today, and 45 of the 54 articles (83 percent) in the Daily News.

In the few stories where the newspapers describe the NRA's mission, they typically refer to it as a "gun rights" organization or a "gun owners" group, with "gun lobby," "firearm group," "pro-gun group," and "gun advocacy group" among the other favorites. One-fifth of the stories (44 out of 212) -- 28 percent in the Times, 14 percent in the Post, 38 percent in USA Today, and 17 percent in the Daily News -- describe the NRA in these ways.


But then again this the way that powerful lobbyist works? they use deceiving practices to keep their supporters from knowing the truth

I am very sure that if I say that the NRA and the gun manufactures are one and the same I would not be lying.

When in the US 90 million Americans own guns you know that is big business and the NRA CEO makes a million dollar a year

What that tells you.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Then you post that they have interpreted the second amendment, to me is not that they have interpreted they are just making sure it never changes



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: tkwasny

Ha. Good one.

Seems to me that the Federalists wanted it all shifted to the federal level (so if the 17-45 year olds want that training they can get it in the military) as at the federal level, the military provides the country protection.

And the anti-Federalists wanted it kept at the state/militia level, so then that would be up to the states in case the fed went rogue, and that was why the Second came to be? So in the case of the 6 to 60 year olds mentioned in the article, their training was up to and on the individuals and the states?

Of course I could have this all wrong.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Are we sure though that it was after? And that now they are just making sure it never changes?

Or did they lobby for and influence the ruling too and make it so?

As I recall it was close, another one of those 5-4 rulings.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Hmmm. I don't know. I'm not sure that the Framers really considered the dangers of frontier life, bears, injuns, the Wild Wild West, Annie Oakley and the like. But, I'm sure that they considered that the right to bear arms extended to the individual's right to enforce protection of one's family and property without having to summon a proper posse before pulling the trigger.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
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"


At the time it was written, there was no U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps.

We had no national defense mechanism other than The Continental Army which was a collective military force that was created by unifying the colonial or state Militias against a common enemy.

Here's a hypothetical;

If the 2nd Amendment had included a phrase guaranteeing every militia member the right to own and graze their militia horses on any public lands of their choosing, would that phrase still be applicable and/or necessary today?

Or how about horse drawn cannons, if it included the right to own those, would that still be necessary or applicable?
edit on 6-10-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I am not claiming any expertise in law or any Supreme Court rulings.
However, I do remember being taught in the fourth grade, during our American Government classes, that the interpretation of the individuals right to bare arms, or keep a gun, was what is meant in the Second Amendment.

I know this may seem like a radical idea, but that's the way we were in the early 1950's.
I would say "so much" for this being a modern interpretation of the thinking of the Founding Fathers.


SM2

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: tkwasny
"Well regulated" in 18th century speak translated into 21st century speak means the FedGov is to provide training and range time to ALL it's citizens aged 17-45. All able-bodied male citizens aged 17-45 ARE BY DEFAULT in the unorganized militia. "Regulated" means to provide a means that the object or subject has control.

Hey Obama, when is my range time appointment with ammo and instructors you are mandated by the Constitution to provide?



Actually the 'well-regulated' term circa 1787 when the Constitution was drafted meant, as the case may be, that which is 'adequate,' 'sufficient.' or 'in the proper form' for its intended purpose. It could also be taken to mean "well equipped".

Sorry all you lefty loones, it doesnt mean restrict and confiscate. The whole "shall not be infringed" part was intended to render the government powerless in regards to that. Not that any of the A*@hats in D.C understand basic English. All this " common sense" regulation that people go on and on about ...is absolutely senseless. What internet loophole? You can not purchase a gun on the internet and have it shipped to your home. It has to be shipped to a Federally licensed dealer where you will go and pick it up after completing a federal background check. If i send in a firearm to be repaired by the manufacturer, it has be sent to a dealer where I do yet another background check to get my gun back. Why should I have to do a background check for a private sale? or a gift? Why do you want me to have my wife have a background check for each firearm I own that is left to her if I die? That is not common sense.

How is a high capacity magazine ban common sense? 8 rounds or 12 rounds, I can reload just as fast. Why is banning a rifle because it black common sense? An ar-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It merely appears to be. AR does not mean assault riffle...it mean Armalite Rifle , the initial developer of the platform.

So essentially what i am saying, is until the anti gunners get educated about the things they hate, no discussion can be had . Its like talking to a toddler about long division.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I am not claiming any expertise in law or any Supreme Court rulings.
However, I do remember being taught in the fourth grade, during our American Government classes, that the interpretation of the individuals right to bare arms, or keep a gun, was what is meant in the Second Amendment.

I know this may seem like a radical idea, but that's the way we were in the early 1950's.
I would say "so much" for this being a modern interpretation of the thinking of the Founding Fathers.


I was taught the same thing, but they also taught me that Columbus was a hero who discovered America and a whole bunch of other crap that turned out to be false as well.

The 2nd amendment was really about the necessity of insuring the state's right to maintain well regulated militias along with the right of it's members to bear arms. This was imperative at the time because without the militias, there would be no other mechanism for national defense.

Hardly the case today.
edit on 6-10-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
In my opinion it still holds merit. Any country with half a brain knows the dangers of trying to invade America. Nobody wants to invade a country where the military is armed to the teeth as well as its population.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: SM2

originally posted by: tkwasny
"Well regulated" in 18th century speak translated into 21st century speak means the FedGov is to provide training and range time to ALL it's citizens aged 17-45. All able-bodied male citizens aged 17-45 ARE BY DEFAULT in the unorganized militia. "Regulated" means to provide a means that the object or subject has control.

Hey Obama, when is my range time appointment with ammo and instructors you are mandated by the Constitution to provide?



Actually the 'well-regulated' term circa 1787 when the Constitution was drafted meant, as the case may be, that which is 'adequate,' 'sufficient.' or 'in the proper form' for its intended purpose. It could also be taken to mean "well equipped".

Sorry all you lefty loones, it doesnt mean restrict and confiscate. The whole "shall not be infringed" part was intended to render the government powerless in regards to that. Not that any of the A*@hats in D.C understand basic English. All this " common sense" regulation that people go on and on about ...is absolutely senseless. What internet loophole? You can not purchase a gun on the internet and have it shipped to your home. It has to be shipped to a Federally licensed dealer where you will go and pick it up after completing a federal background check. If i send in a firearm to be repaired by the manufacturer, it has be sent to a dealer where I do yet another background check to get my gun back. Why should I have to do a background check for a private sale? or a gift? Why do you want me to have my wife have a background check for each firearm I own that is left to her if I die? That is not common sense.

How is a high capacity magazine ban common sense? 8 rounds or 12 rounds, I can reload just as fast. Why is banning a rifle because it black common sense? An ar-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It merely appears to be. AR does not mean assault riffle...it mean Armalite Rifle , the initial developer of the platform.

So essentially what i am saying, is until the anti gunners get educated about the things they hate, no discussion can be had . Its like talking to a toddler about long division.


OK, I'm a progressive who owns guns and also favors tighter regulations and I have a question regarding your argument for access to high capacity clips;

Not that I believe it, but if you can "reload just as fast," (as you stated in your post) why do you need the high capacity magazine to begin with?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity




“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.”



Look, I am all for gun control, but I simply cannot understand why the very eloquent men who wrote this would explicitly write the right of the people right after mentioning the security of the state if we were not meant to differentiate between the two.

If it had been down to only whether or not the comma should be read as an 'and' rather than a semicolon, I could understand the debate, but it is not. The wording itself, to me, makes it clear that they intended to secure both the people's right to bear arms and the right to have a militia to defend the state.

Not only the wording, but the time (context) in which it was written makes it perfectly logical:

The individual needs to be protected from unjust rulers and the state themselves need to be protected against supranational entities (i.e. federal government running amok).

The lacks of above protections from aristocrats/noblemen/kings/church and from colonial powers is what lead to the birth of the United States in the first place!


However much I disagree that the reasoning behind it is valid today, it is in my opinion simply not possible NOT to see the individual's right to bear arms protected by the amendment.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Here's another hypothetical. What if freedom of the press had been defined as that done on a handset type offset press? Would it extend to the net?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
The most fascinating thing to come out of the pro-gun/anti-gun debate is the zealous passion and blind ignorance to each others pov. It's you are with us or against us. No middle ground. No room for discussion.

To the OP. 2A reads like you said. It's one simple sentence that reads clearly and was upheld by a modern supreme court. Regardless of lobbies it's in the Bill of Rights to defend myself as I see fit that shall not be infringed.

What you are saying is that up until recently the 2a was not intended as such. I disagree. I see it as an upheld amendment that was/is taking a hit and the Supreme Court was needed to "re-affirm" the right that shall not be infringed.

As for restricting citizens with issues. I agree with the sentiment but do not feel that such a task to label someone unfit to bare arms could be done without bias. Especially with the political climate of today. So I have to side with it's all or nothing.

Both sides need to get together and hug it out then the anti-gun side needs to understand that guns are not going anywhere. They then need to work with the pro-gun folks and come up with something. By something I mean arming and training teachers. After all its 2015 and we live in a crazy world where crazy people kill dozens of unarmed people in schools. Mandatory firearms classes for students. Easing measures in states that deny law abiding citizens the right to bare arms. Guns in the hands of law abiding well trained citizens save lives.

Like you I am sick of seeing defenseless people shot down over such petty things. My biggest woe is this. During every single mass shooting that involves school children there was no one there to protect them.

Bad guys will always have guns.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
First off - if a discussion is to be done on 2A then the OP should use original text instead of example that has extra commas added that are not in official preserved Constitution.

The original reads,

"A well regulated militia being necessary to preserve the security of a free state,

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The continued addition of those extra commas is a sore spot for me as it subtly changes meaning and adds room for useless argument on meaning.


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



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

That would mean we could maintain caches of equipment and weapons on private land so long as they petained to the mission requirements.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: amicktd
In my opinion it still holds merit. Any country with half a brain knows the dangers of trying to invade America. Nobody wants to invade a country where the military is armed to the teeth as well as its population.


I don't think anyone, (foreign or American) really believes that it's even possible to "disarm" the American populace. Except of course, those who propagate fear and paranoia for a living.

Most of what I'm hearing, are calls for the implementation of reasonable regulations that have been proven to have a positive affect wherever the have been instituted.
edit on 6-10-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Flatfish

That would mean we could maintain caches of equipment and weapons on private land so long as they petained to the mission requirements.


Not sure I understand. What would mean that?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

The "Grazing horses" deal via interpretation....YOU asked



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
As far as my opinion is concerned, the right to bear arms is the right to protect oneself and other people. At the same time it seems violence is the only way for there to be some sort of limit on population and this limit is too small. People aren't dying like they used to, there has been no Bubonic Plague of our times nor other natural disaster. People that are stupid, like that man that died by accidental discharge while taking a selfie with his gun, or weak die. Natural selection. Let us not forget.
edit on 6-10-2015 by Tiamat384 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join