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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) authored the controversial 1996 amendment that remains in place. He wishes Congress would change it.

Oh man, this guy didn't even want any RESEARCH done on gun violence. Little wonder he has regrets.


He is gone from Congress, giving him space to reflect on his namesake amendment that, to this day, continues to define the rigid politics of gun policy. When he helped pass a restriction of federal funding for gun violence research in 1996, the goal wasn't to be so suffocating, he insisted. But the measure was just that, dampening federal research for years and discouraging researchers from entering the field.

Now, as mass shootings pile up, including last week's killing of nine at a community college in Oregon, Dickey admitted to carrying a sense of responsibility for progress not made.

"I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time," Dickey, an Arkansas Republican, told the Huffington Post in an interview. "I have regrets."


www.huffingtonpost.com...




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Now they seek to make hunting and fishing a right guaranteed by the constitution.

Seems like a good idea unless you are a thinker.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Nothing should be regulated in the land of the free. If you break the law, which means hurting other people, then you should be punished. Restitution is preferable to prison.

"Regulated" in the Constitution meant-- having the discipline and equipment so as to be a regular unit in the Continental Army. Regulated meant ready to fight in the big army.


Many things need to be regulated in any society and "hurting people" is only one form of lawbreaking.

You don't think that lead exposure needs to be regulated? How about pesticides like DDT? How about the disposal of radioactive waste, should that be regulated?

Polluting or harming the environment is a form of law breaking as well as many other things.


If you hurt no one, you are not breaking the law.

If you hurt someone, then you owe restitution.


Does harming future generations count for anything? You know, those people we call our children and grandchildren, do they count?


DDT almost eradicated malaria in the tropics. The folks that live there should decide whether DDT is illegal or not.

Harm deserves restitution, like I already wrote.

Prevention is addiction to totalitarianism.



DDT is also proven to cause a whole host of long term side effects in both humans and wildlife. On top of that, those responsible for environmental pollution are usually long gone or file for bankruptcy protection by the time the damage is realized and many of those affected don't realize the cause, or they're already dead.

Remember Love Canal? That's what lack of regulations get us.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Unfortunately, one bad law passed by one side sometimes lead to more bad laws, as the other side overreacts and does the exact same thing from the opposite direction. Had that ineffective 1994 Assault Weapons ban never existed to poison the political well on this issue, this law banning funding for gun violence research probably wouldn't either.

Maybe its time for both sides to stop proposing/passing bad laws?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Could be, but while I know that lobbyist influences the politics in Washington, Is harder to see how the money gets into the supreme court members as they are appointed by presidents.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Nothing should be regulated in the land of the free. If you break the law, which means hurting other people, then you should be punished. Restitution is preferable to prison.

"Regulated" in the Constitution meant-- having the discipline and equipment so as to be a regular unit in the Continental Army. Regulated meant ready to fight in the big army.


Many things need to be regulated in any society and "hurting people" is only one form of lawbreaking.

You don't think that lead exposure needs to be regulated? How about pesticides like DDT? How about the disposal of radioactive waste, should that be regulated?

Polluting or harming the environment is a form of law breaking as well as many other things.


If you hurt no one, you are not breaking the law.

If you hurt someone, then you owe restitution.


Does harming future generations count for anything? You know, those people we call our children and grandchildren, do they count?


DDT almost eradicated malaria in the tropics. The folks that live there should decide whether DDT is illegal or not.

Harm deserves restitution, like I already wrote.

Prevention is addiction to totalitarianism.



DDT is also proven to cause a whole host of long term side effects in both humans and wildlife. On top of that, those responsible for environmental pollution are usually long gone or file for bankruptcy protection by the time the damage is realized and many of those affected don't realize the cause, or they're already dead.

Remember Love Canal? That's what lack of regulations get us.


Side effects as bad as malaria?

The folks suffering the malaria should have decided the fate of their own area.

Publicity prevents another love canal.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Thomas Jefferson.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That is the part that I can not find, but I am trying to find experts opinions on what happen and if they influence the supreme court or not.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Oh no they say it's ABSOLUTLY safe now so WE can believe them of course..www.nytimes.com...
edit on 6-10-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Now they seek to make hunting and fishing a right guaranteed by the constitution.

Seems like a good idea unless you are a thinker.


Anyone who has studied even a modicum of American history during the Revolutionary War Era, and what lead up to it.

And just want the colonials had to do just to get armed.

KNOWS what the meaning of the second is.

Anyone peddling the second amendment was about 'hunting, and sport' is straight up pushing intellectual dishonesty.

And they deliberately spread that false 'information'.

The Founders from the grave are giving the triple three stooge face palm to the anti gunners.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


It is all over once they convince everyone that a license is required to exercise your rights.

Looks like we will all be wards of the state always having to opt in to the necessities of life.

Yes there is a fee for that and restrictions apply.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
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.



Guess it depends what state you're from, as there were 13 copies and they all appear to have differences.


Regarding commas found in the eight different versions of the Second Amendment returned as ratified from various state legislatures, there was at least one of each with zero, one, two, and three commas. [Source within Source]


I personally wouldn't go with the comma argument. More relevance and intent can be probably be derived elsewhere.
edit on 10/6/2015 by ~Lucidity because: forgot the source.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Flatfish

Most shops can tell by the way you actually HANDLE the gun.
If you walk into some shops I know and hold a pistol sideways you're not buying a damn thing.


Of the three shop/ranges I go to here, only one does that...makes you handle it, clear it, load it, etc...but that's just to be able to shoot on their range. They'd still sell you one without doing that.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity



I personally wouldn't go with the comma argument. More relevance and intent can be probably be derived elsewhere.

Yes.
By reading what the founding fathers wrote about the Amendment at the time.
It is clear as to their intent.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

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.


Sounds reasonable



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity




I personally wouldn't go with the comma argument. More relevance and intent can be probably be derived elsewhere.


So basically ignore punctuation.

www.businessinsider.com...
edit on 6-10-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ~Lucidity




I personally wouldn't go with the comma argument. More relevance and intent can be probably be derived elsewhere.


So basically ignore punctuation.

www.businessinsider.com...

So basically, you ignore the fact that among the 8 of the 13 copies sent to the states for ratification, there was at least one of each with zero commas, one comma, two commas, and three commas. So moot point there, bud and whatever pal of bud starred that ignorant statement.
edit on 10/6/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Want to try again ?

I am not IGNORING the rest of the Bill of RIght's and the 14th amendment.

The founders intent was CLEAR.

Try reading the 5th,9th, and 14th amendments.

Then think of the second.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

How about the original in the library of Congress, is that not the "official" copy - the one which copies were made from? The one which federal government should refer to?

And yes it matters how many commas because that's where anti-second folks get the idea that it covers members of militia and not the people.

I think reason you'd muddle comma issue is it destroys the entire stance of anti argument having any constitutional stance.

How does one arrive at the conclusion that a manually transcribed copy with added commas is superior to the original.






edit on 6-10-2015 by Phoenix because: Sp

edit on 6-10-2015 by Phoenix because: Add comment



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Nothing should be regulated in the land of the free. If you break the law, which means hurting other people, then you should be punished. Restitution is preferable to prison.

"Regulated" in the Constitution meant-- having the discipline and equipment so as to be a regular unit in the Continental Army. Regulated meant ready to fight in the big army.


Many things need to be regulated in any society and "hurting people" is only one form of lawbreaking.

You don't think that lead exposure needs to be regulated? How about pesticides like DDT? How about the disposal of radioactive waste, should that be regulated?

Polluting or harming the environment is a form of law breaking as well as many other things.


If you hurt no one, you are not breaking the law.

If you hurt someone, then you owe restitution.


Does harming future generations count for anything? You know, those people we call our children and grandchildren, do they count?


DDT almost eradicated malaria in the tropics. The folks that live there should decide whether DDT is illegal or not.

Harm deserves restitution, like I already wrote.

Prevention is addiction to totalitarianism.



DDT is also proven to cause a whole host of long term side effects in both humans and wildlife. On top of that, those responsible for environmental pollution are usually long gone or file for bankruptcy protection by the time the damage is realized and many of those affected don't realize the cause, or they're already dead.

Remember Love Canal? That's what lack of regulations get us.


Side effects as bad as malaria?

The folks suffering the malaria should have decided the fate of their own area.

Publicity prevents another love canal.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Thomas Jefferson.


OK answer me this;

If nothing should be "regulated" in the land of the free, how do you even explain the 2nd amendment? Much less, defend it.

Doesn't it reinforce the need of well "regulated" state militias?

Or have I misinterpreted your support for the 2nd?

Are you really against it because it promotes "regulation" in the land of the free?
edit on 6-10-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

For crying out loud.

A well regulated militia does NOT mean the right of the people.

People need GUNZ to form militias.

People need GUNZ to hunt for food, and PROTECT their homes.

TWO separate things there.

What gun control has effectively done you know that FASCIST concept has reduced the modern American to what we once were.

Out gunned like before the Revolutionary War.

And we owe our THANKS to the French and the Dutch for arming us.

Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join