How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

How come all the progressives and Obama didnt come out against guns when all those shootings of targeted police officers came out?

Why is it only when something like THIS happens all the sudden the media tells the sheep, that they need to be pissed about guns and stuff?

Why is it when a police officer shoots a black man, they dont go for his gun? They go for the officer? No talk there by Obama and the progressive left about taking guns THEN, its all about Corrupt POLICE....

I cant believe people cant see these stark contrasts for the agenda they are

a reply to: BlastedCaddy

It's my understanding that there were two different people at last week's shooting who were indeed licensed and armed, yet by their own admission, they both wisely chose not to engage the shooter.

Why? Because they knew that when law enforcement arrived, (with guns ablaze) they could easily be confused for the shooter and become the target for police.

I don't think it's a matter of training either. If anything, it's a matter of stupid!

I watched "American Sniper" for the first time the other night and I remember the sexy/romance scene where Chris Kyle, (Bradely Cooper) was home on leave and he approached his wife in the kitchen with a revolver and ordered her to "drop them drawers, slowly." While it did make me chuckle, it also made cringe.

Now I know it's just a movie, but it's a movie about one of the most highly trained vets in American history and I have to ask, "Whether you think it's loaded or not, what gun training/safety course tells you that it's ever OK to point your weapon at another person unless you specifically intend to shoot them?"

Now if we could create a pre-gun sales stupidity test, that would be great!

One can debate what meaning of "well regulated miltia" means all day.

I go with "well trained" when studying founders terms and ideas. I will say 100% that it does not mean "government run, organized or sponsored" anywhere in first half of sentence.

There is no ambiguity in second half of the sentence making up the Second Amendment.

This is using original text from saved document, not the contrived one mistakenly (purposely?) cited with extra commas added.

originally posted by: Bedlam
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?

Thank you!

originally posted by: Flatfish

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?

I never said I needed them. How is me owning a high capacity magazine bothering you? I am never going to go on some sort of rampage.I am saying that a ban on them is nonsensical. It did made no difference in anything during the previous ban that Clinton put in place, so why would it do any good now? All the ban this and ban that is just an emotional reaction. Ban guns so people cant have them....well when was the last time you could buy crystal meth at a store? People still get that dont they? The majority of talking points from the anti gunners and people that push " common sense gun reforms" use a bunch of made up statistics and circular thinking . First off, be honest, they do not want "common sense reform" they want tighter restrictions and/or confiscations. When that side can be honest about their intentions and become educated on the items they wish to regulate, then a real conversation can be had. Until then it is useless, assault weapons are already regulated to the functional ban thanks to the NFA (national firearms act of 1934) Banning something because it is scary looking is the epitome of stupid and useless.

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.

I would also point out that Congress already had the authority to organize, arm and discipline the militia under the terms of the original Constitution in Article 1 Section 8. If 2A applies only to well-regulated militias, 2A was redundant at the time of its ratification. Then there's that pesky 'right of the people' phrase in 2A that also appears in other sections of the Bill of Rights which, I might add, are almost universally considered to be in reference to individual rights. If its true elsewhere, the same standard must be applied to 2A.

Further, as you state, there actually IS a legal definition of 'militia' in US law (the Militia Act), which creates two classes of militia: organized and unorganized. The unorganized militia is effectively all able-bodied males of draft age. However, if we're to use that definition in the context of conferring a right via 2A, it must apply equally to all, as per the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Regardless, this whole debate is a waste of time. Its been repeated over and over and over and over by both sides. Law abiding citizens have owned firearms in this country since its inception. If we're going to change that, then lets do it the right way and quit trying to circumvent 2A. Lets call a convention of the states and decide the issue once and for all.

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: BlastedCaddy

"It's my understanding that there were two different people at last week's shooting who were indeed licensed and armed, yet by their own admission, they both wisely chose not to engage the shooter."


While waiting for the police 9 people died.

They were armed but didn't want to help. That is their choice.

Chris Mintz made a choice and he was unarmed. If he was armed he would not be recovering from a hospital bed and there might be less victims.

It's all perspective.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Flatfish

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

OK, I get it.

That was my point exactly. At the time, (I don't think we had "States" yet) strong colonial militias were necessary in order to ensure the security of our nation "State."

Colonial militias were made up of armed citizens and to insure the viability of the militias, the right of the citizens to be armed could not be infringed.

So yes, it was intended to guarantee that the militia's armory could be held by the citizens.

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.

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.

I love it when people who want to violate the constitution, try to tell me what it says........

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, I've heard of some shops that can tell whether or not someone's worthy of purchasing a gun based on their religion too. Go figure!

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?

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

Yeah they did.

Amendment II 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.

It's talking about TWO separate but equal things there.

The militia.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms s

Both being necessary to the security of a FREE state.

Shall not be infringed.

They when on to write the rest of the bill of rights that is about DUE PROCESS.

The followed that up with the ninth amendment

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 'list' of certain rights SHALL NOT be INTPRETED to deny, or disparage other rights meaning that second amenmdnet retained by the people.


The 14th amendment was later written which doubled down on those UNALIENABLE rights.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

NO STATE shall ABRIDGE the privileges or immunities of the United States.

NOR shall any state DEPRIVE any person of LIFE,LIBERTY, and PROPERTY.

WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

The NRA didn't rewrite snip.

Gun control advocates are the ones doing the rewriting.

VIOLATING American gun owners CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Hone your skills. The Propaganda Wars are in full battle.

Where exactly did the NRA influence the Supreme Court?

The entire article from Politico is tainted and goes off on multiple tangents.

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.

a reply to: Flatfish

AS if you don't know WHY?

BULL ,you aren't so disconnected you can't figure it out.
No way to ID threats amongst a given group known to harbor them AKA PROFILING with a buisness choice.
NOT a personal prejudice.
A fuction of percieved security by the one selling guns.