That makes sense to me, how about you? If folks insist on citing the slave-owning, misogynistic demi-gods they reverently refer to as The Founders, they should at least strive to be honest about what they, The Founders, intended.The city at the north end of our cultural-technology corridor put on a sensational fireworks display earlier this month to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment being ratified.It was four months late, but what a meaningful way to recognize how the National Rifle Association (NRA) and others have used that controversial amendment. Actually, it’s not the amendment that’s controversial, it’s the broad differences on how it should be interpreted.I have family members and good friends who disagree with me, but I’m one of those who believe reasonable gun controls, in addition to being constitutional, would be a huge plus for public safety.You may have noticed that the 2nd Amendment’s first two phrases focus on the necessity of a well-regulated militia. I believe the Founding Fathers envisioned an organized and well-regulated militia. I can’t believe they had in mind more than 300 million people running around with weapons ranging from small caliber revolvers to assault weapons.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I think that you're not paying attention.
ReplyDeleteFresh fruit being a source of vitamin C, the right of the people to keep and eat oranges shall not be infringed.
Does that statement mean that people can't simply enjoy an orange for its flavor? What if they want to use one to make a mixed drink?
The militia clause gives the explanation for why the right is ennumerated, but that's the subordinate clause. The right of the people clause is independent and is not limited just to members of the militia.
But reading the work of gun grabbers tells me that few of you understand grammar.
Greg, you're flippin' and floppin' all over the place. Now you say we can interpret the 2A like that, ignoring the first part of it.
DeleteI've said the same thing all along. The militia is the motivation, but the right is for all citizens.
DeleteMikeb, I'm curious, do you have a problem with the other items in the Bill of Rights that the slave-owning, misogynistic demi-gods included? How about a license for free speech or to practice a certain religion? Perhaps do away with the right to be secure in your person & papers and abolish the right to a jury, or even a trial.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Yes, the 3A is as anachronistic and meaningless today as the 2A is. The others work pretty well still. I think I'll keep 'em.
DeleteOur rights aren't based on your preferences.
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying we should just blow of the law of our land? If the laws pertained to something else, I am sure you would pitch a fit if we called them anachronistic and should be undone.
Isn't the Magna Carta reallly old? Same w/ habeas corpus, due process, and trial by jury. I guess we should get rid of those too right because they are vestiges of a by-gone era?
We have been over this before - I and many others believe the militia clause is a "you get to" clause not a "you must have" kind. I can back that up based on what the founding fathers had to say about weapons, government, and liberty in general.
Do enlighten us Mike. Which Founding Fathers owned slaves? Which ones did not?
John Adams didn't own slaves, and many of the Founders were against slavery, including some of the slave owners. But activists get worked up when people of the past didn't conform to their expectations.
DeleteDavid wins the prize for the most innovative spin doctor.
Delete"the militia clause is a "you get to" clause not a "you must have" kind."
Yeah, I once heard a joke that goes something like this. When the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution & Declaration of Independence they were Deists. When the were beating their slaves they were Christians . . . You might be an Atheist if.
ReplyDelete"John Adams didn't own slaves, and many of the Founders were against slavery, including some of the slave owners."
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea how fucking stupid that sentence is? It's like saying that someone is fighting to preserve the peace, it can only make sense to an idiot like you.
This link:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_of_the_signatories_of_the_Declaration_of_Independence_and_Constitutional_Convention_delegates_were_slave_owners
provides some information. It says approximately 2/5 to 1/2 of the constitutional conventions attendees were slaveholders. It does say that George Mason (a slaveholder) and others decried the institution, so what? If they were truly anti-slavery they would have simply freed their chattels. Only someone suffering from massive cognitive dissonance could perceive otherwise.
In other words, Democommie, you provided support for my point, while at the same time you criticize it. You will let me know when you learn about the reading comprehension that you keep talking about, won't you?
DeleteI’m one of those who believe reasonable gun controls, in addition to being constitutional, would be a huge plus for public safety.
ReplyDeleteReasonable gun control is allowed under the second amendment, and the SCOTUS recently repeated that the right is not absolute. Anyone who wants to destroy the second amendment by saying there is no individual right to gun ownership must have something UNreasonable in mind.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteReally? You really want to go into depth about how the Founding Fathers viewed the 2A and its militia clause as a right and not a prohibition? Do you care to look at what the founders wrote about freedom and weapons in general? How did they view the Constitution after they wrote/signed it?
Mike, I think you know deep down that the founders supported the view that I hold . . . And you hate that.
You attempts to psychoanalyze me are a laugh. I suspect you're the one who knows your 2A argument is hollow.
DeleteWhat the Founders intended was obvious: they wanted citizens to be armed with effective tools for self-defense against any enemy to society -- whether that enemy was a local thug, a local gang, a local government, a state government, the federal government, or a foreign invader -- and they penned the 2nd Amendment to stop government from interfering with that objective. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or horribly misinformed.
ReplyDeleteAs for Mr. Elliot's thinking that gun control is necessary for public safety, perhaps he can explain why there wasn't a rampant problem with "gun violence" 100 years ago when there were no "gun control" laws at all -- or why there is so much "gun violence" today after nearly 40 years of aggressive gun control laws on the books.
As for a well regulated militia, it will appear almost overnight if the need arises. Of course the more that our government criminalizes citizens for owning and possessing firearms in public, the harder it is to see that.
No, that's not obvious at all, in fact it's wrong. What the founders wanted, if it matters so much to you what the slave-owning misogynists wanted way back then, was protection against standing armies or foreign invaders. That's about it.
DeleteBy the way I don't subscribe to the 2nd Amendment concept because I think the Founders were infallible, I subscribe to the concept because:
ReplyDelete(a) It's in our U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, and
(b) It is an incredibly useful enumerated right that always has been and always will be useful.
That second point is very important. I have illustrated many times that violent crime is commonplace today and law enforcement is impotent to stop it. This is an example of the need for self-defense against individual criminals. And I pointed out how a Sheriff in Southern Arizona declared that citizens were on their own because he could no longer secure the several thousand square miles that drug and human traffickers have dominated. This is an example of the need for self-defense against gangs or even a foreign invader. And we have the example of the Battle of Athens Tennessee in 1946 where armed citizens stopped the local Sheriff and his posse from hijacking an election. This is an example of the need for self-defense from government gone awry.
I would also point out southern Louisiana in the days immediately following hurricane Katrina. Various law enforcement and national guard units began illegally confiscating firearms -- at gunpoint -- from law abiding citizens who were not breaking any laws. Those agents were guilty of several felonies including assault with a deadly weapon, theft, and acting under "color of law" to violate civil rights of citizens. For anyone who doesn't understand the "color of law" concept, here is a quote from the Federal Bureau of Investigation:
"... it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under 'color of law' willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law