How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

originally posted by: Flatfish

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?

In 1787, regulated meant, able to be incorporated immediately into the army without training or equipping. Familiarity with the weapons of the day at least halves the training time for new soldiers.

There was no standing army in 1787. Congress has to vote to keep it every two years.

COTUS Article 1 section 8 clause 12

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
www.americasfreedom.com...

The Constitution was meant to be the rules of the club. It was not meant to be the ruler of the nation.

Every interpretation of the Constitution since the Progressive Era has usurped power to the Federal Government.

And they a going to take as much power as they can.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm sticking with it's an ambiguously constructed sentence. I can read it either way. So still not convinced.

Well if you were a lawyer advocating for a different interpretation, how would you re-word the 2nd and present a case in court?

a reply to: xuenchen

And.

Why do they trust the government more than the people?

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed


That means either:

1) the people have the "right to be in a militia", because they might really want to do that.

Or

2) that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, because the people had just fought one revolution and might need to fight another.

Why would the Bill of Rights give you the "Right to be in a Militia"?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I'm not done yet but so far, it seems to be the Federalists were mostly for a standing army and the Antifederalists against.

Here's a bit of irony in Federalist 26: Seems Hamilton believed a standing army big enough to threaten liberty wouldn't be allowed to happen because the turnover in the legislative branch would prevent this from happening.

Seems to me we're not addressing some root causes here...as in the bought-and-paid-for professional politicians.

Federalist 46 check it out

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Okay...thanks.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

From what I'm reading it seems that the "state" militias were the counterbalance to the federal standing army. So, again, I can see both points there.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

I understand that.

I was saying that if you think it means a "formal military body" then it has to come to either of two conclusions which I listed.

The actual militia is simply anyone who knows how to hold a gun and properly load, aim and fire it. If the numbers are accurate, the US has the potential to field a militia of 300 million although most of the privately owned guns are in multi-gun households.

So where does a militia get gunz people ?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I understand that.

I was saying that if you think it means a "formal military body" then it has to come to either of two conclusions which I listed.

The actual militia is simply anyone who knows how to hold a gun and properly load, aim and fire it. If the numbers are accurate, the US has the potential to field a militia of 300 million although most of the privately owned guns are in multi-gun households.

I know you do. We have had some pretty good discussions. It was a general comment piggy backing off yours. We're good.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The States are really State sovereign governments.

King George made peace with each one.

Article 1st:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia,

to be free sovereign and Independent States;

that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.
www.ourdocuments.gov...

And

The Second Amendment does not say, "the right of the States to keep and bear arms"

Individuals have the right to bear arms, because the governmental deadly force has no other counterbalance.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

That wasn't my point.

But okay.

The second amendment dogmatists are too programmed in gun dogma to ever move away from their rigidity.

There’s only one thing that will move these people:

That is if black panthers start walking around with guns again they’ll likely change real fast!

originally posted by: Willtell
The second amendment dogmatists are too programmed in gun dogma to ever move away from their rigidity.

There’s only one thing that will move these people:

That is if black panthers start walking around with guns again they’ll likely change real fast!

I'm sure that would get a push for gun control going. Why the site of armed angry people definately would encourage people to ask for gun control. /sarc

originally posted by: Willtell
The second amendment dogmatists are too programmed in gun dogma to ever move away from their rigidity.

There’s only one thing that will move these people:

That is if black panthers start walking around with guns again they’ll likely change real fast!

it says what it says...no need to type it again. It is plain English. If you do not understand it by now, you will not. Rigidity is exactly what is called for. There are no conditions on the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights. It is not free speech unless it is bleeding heart liberal whining is it? Just because you are scared of a gun (the general you, not you specifically) because you know absolutely jack about them, does not mean we should change the constitution. Maybe the uneducated fear mongers should grow a pair.

I could not care less if the black panthers walked around with guns. If they are legally owned guns and are carrying them in a legal fashion, then i have no issues with it.

originally posted by: Willtell
The second amendment dogmatists are too programmed in gun dogma to ever move away from their rigidity.

There’s only one thing that will move these people:

That is if black panthers start walking around with guns again they’ll likely change real fast!

Anti gun people aren't too bright. Guns aren't the problem. We have what 310 million non military Guns in the US. About what 100 million of those part of the black market. If guns were the problem we should see 10s of millions of gun related homicides each year not the roughly 10,000 we see. Technically if guns themselves were the problem we should see the US population wiped out in a year. But we don't. The people using those guns to commit crimes are the problem. Sorry the numbers prove guns aren't the problem. Rant, argue, whatever. That's all it is, all it ever will be.

Again as long as it stays in the inner city and undesirable parts gun control advocates, politicians, and media don't care. Let it spill over to gun free schools, movie theatre's, places where anti gun people might be. It's non stop coverage , outrage and so on. At least be honest with yourself. Gun violence isn't an issue as long as it stays in the less desirable area's. If it was there would be more outrage at those instances each day but there's not. The small percentage of mass shooters coming into your area get the publicity but not anywhere near the number of total deaths happening in the less than desirable locations.....not a word though, unless you want to try the pathetic trick of somehow tying overall gun deaths ( not just homicides) and mass shooters together.

You people are broken records and way too emotional, and just not that good at thinking.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

See...now, I think there's a bigger picture that you're not getting. You're simply associating the gun violence with criminals. You're not really taking into consideration the number of suicides that are enabled by gun ownership, or that...while criminals don't believe everyone is armed, police do and are more apt to fire their weapons at unarmed assailants.

The gun issue is much, much more than just gun violence between gangs in the inner city or the frequent mass shootings we face. The predominance of firearms is a health issue in this country. Will we eliminate death and injury if we got rid of every gun in the country? No, absolutely not. We will greatly reduce the numbers though.

Ok I am just going to skip the dozen or so pages of the usual trash that fills these threads and contribute how I interpret this.

“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.”

IMO based on grammar this amendment is guaranteeing both the right of the people to bear arms, AND having a well regulated militia
“A well regulated militia,
the first comma is simply used as an description of the preceding noun. As in the following example:

Tom, a PHD in constitutional law, believes in the second amendment.

The second comma always comes after that description to basically restart the sentence.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
This third comma is simply the final break in the list before finishing the sentence with the predicate that assigns purpose/verb to the subject?

Does anyone understand what I am trying to say here because it has been awhile since I was actually in school studying the breakdown of a sentence. The subject are both the well regulated militia and The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The predicate is telling us about this subject or what it is doing, in this case shall not be infringed.

Thats how I have always understood it in my perspective.

In any case Great Britain violent crime has gone up every year since guns were banned, and I believe the same can be said about Australia. Oh no doubt gun violence and deaths went down. But what is always failed to be mentioned is the rate of victimization and violent crime that has gone sky high as a result. So while an angry teenager may not be murdering his classmates every few months, a higher number of them are engaged in hooliganism and rape due to a lack of deterrence in the unarmed citizens.

Ask a rape victim in Britain if she wishes she had a gun to shoot the attacker with or at least scare him/them away. I am very certain they will not care about the imaginary hypothetical children that are now safe because "guns are scary, evil, and do not belong in civilized society" . Well so is rape, and it is also illegal, and yet it still happens.

The Australian Bureau of Criminology states its murder rate in 2006 with firearms was the highest ever at 16.3 percent. The ban started in 1997.

Also since the ban, here are the crime increases:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent, robbery 6.2 percent, sexual assault/rape 29.2 percent and overall crime rose 42.2 percent. Those numbers are quite a startling difference from ''virtually eliminating gun deaths and no substantial increase in violent crime.'' And since the ban, Australian women are raped three times more often than American women. Using Australia as an model to lead people into a false sense of security that an anti-gun policy could create a safer society is an injustice.

and

On Tuesday, MPs heard claims that forces were routinely manipulating crime statistics to meet targets.

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said it was the first time a chief constable had spoken out in this way and his comments would fuel a debate about the reliability of crime data.

Mr Creedon, who speaks for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) on organised crime, insisted the "real position" was that domestic violence and sexual violence were going up.

He said manipulation of the figures was the "unintended consequence" of pressure from police leaders, inspections and plans drawn up by police and crime commissioners to cut crime.

He said he had found robberies being logged as "theft snatch" in order to get them off the books.

And a former West Midlands chief inspector described practices such as recording thefts as "lost property".

Committee chairman, Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, said he was "shocked" by the claims of such manipulation "on such a wide scale".

I'd say the real question is...why is this happening now?

Yeah, you've had the occasional crazy person throughout history. But not like now. And I don't think it's a matter of better reporting now.

Admittedly anecdotal point: not THAT long ago, when I was in high school, "gun control" meant putting your rifle/shotgun in the principal's gun cabinet in the office on the way in to class in the morning, if you were planning to hunt on your way home. Otherwise, it might be stolen if you left it in the truck's rifle rack.

We had a lot of fist fights and pushy-shovy stuff. But I can only recall one "weapon" incident, where someone pulled a knife during getting his butt whipped. No one got suspended, although they had to do a lot of detention. That was it. There weren't even that many serious fights.

It hasn't been that long. What happened in the meantime?

a reply to: Bedlam

It's not really a 'new' thing; Mass Shootings in America: A Historical Review

Reporting may be a factor, you hear about it constantly because there are numerous TV channels dedicated to news. So it seems like it's happening all the time now. It's been an issue for decades.

These aren't even new arguments, Watc h RFK give a speech about gun control in Roseburg, Ore., nearly 50 years ago.

“With all the violence and murder and killings we’ve had in the United States, I think you will agree that we must keep firearms from people who have no business with guns or rifles,” he said, according to an account in the New York Times that week. That article noted that he was met with signs comparing firearm registration to Nazi Germany and a crowd that insisted new laws wouldn’t stop criminals from getting guns.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Reallyfolks

See...now, I think there's a bigger picture that you're not getting. You're simply associating the gun violence with criminals. You're not really taking into consideration the number of suicides that are enabled by gun ownership, or that...while criminals don't believe everyone is armed, police do and are more apt to fire their weapons at unarmed assailants.

The gun issue is much, much more than just gun violence between gangs in the inner city or the frequent mass shootings we face. The predominance of firearms is a health issue in this country. Will we eliminate death and injury if we got rid of every gun in the country? No, absolutely not. We will greatly reduce the numbers though.

Gun violence is responsible for something like 0.03% of all deaths each year so how will it greatly reduce anything??????

I get it, but gun suicides don't bother gun advocates any more than gun violence does as long as gun violence stays in the inner cities. The only time gun advocates, politicians, and , media go into rage mode is when gun violence leaves the inner cities and hits the gun free zones and places they are likely to be. Not from suicides, not from the majority of gun homicides taking place in less desirable areas.

I get it. Suicides, inner cities not a problem. A gun free zone or a place anti gunners might be...outrage, all gun death is wrong, all gun numbers must be used to show the point, but only after rage mode kicks in. I get it completely, but making up statements that removing all gun deaths would greatly remove total deaths is false, not even half a percent. So I see the lies, I see the lack of outrage until it hits certain areas, I see the word games, I see the number play, I definately am not missing it.

Anti gunners just aren't logical, realistic, or very honest.