NRA version of 2nd Amendment lacks common sense

Chicago Tribune ^ | June 5, 2015 | David McGrath

[mad_as_he$$]

Exactly, it is just common sense.

[Genoa]

Outrageous legerdemain, sir, shysterly sleight-of-hand! A conjurer’s trick! The Founders knew what “the people” were: citizens of any number acting in any capacity they chose.

[Chi-townChief]

The comments are classic ... http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/opinion/ct-sta-mcgrath-gun-rights-st-0607-20150605-story.html#panel=comments

[Svartalfiar]

You're missing part of that act, namely the part that REQUIRES every citizen defined within the act to purchase a firearm.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

[GeronL]

There is only one version of the 2nd amendment

[RKBA Democrat]

No need to even discuss the topic with the grabbers. It boils down to a few basic facts that have nothing to do with the second amendment.

First, there are over 300 million firearms in private hands. Judging from the latest CT registration fiasco, few will register said weapons when told to do so and even fewer will turn them in if told to do so.

Second, with advances in CNC technology, it will soon be feasible for anyone to build their own firearm in the privacy and comfort of their own home. We’re already there in truth, the price just needs to come down.

Third, given that people who are able to build their own firearms and are unwilling to register or turn them in, what is written on piece of paper matters little. What matters is who owns the guns, and it isnt those who want to restict their ownership.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Ask any high school English teacher to parse the Second Amendment, and they will say that [...] it means that the American people will retain the right to carry weapons as members of a state militia in order to safeguard their freedom."

Ask any lawyer to illuminate English professors on Marbury vs. Madison (1803) and they'll point to the foot high letters engraved and gilded on the entryway foyer of the United States Supreme Court which reads:

[Repeal 16-17]

-None of these things appear in the US Constitution. But liberals keep telling me they do.

Those rights are located in the 28th Amendment, which is written in invisible ink. [/sarc]

[ModelBreaker]

“Ask any liberal government school union teacher and they would parse it to mean teacher pensions need to be doubled.”

LOL

[Stepan12]

The "Chicago Tribune" doesn't know what it is talking about. The phrase a well regulated militia is a present participle not a restrictive clause. It is separate and does not modify the last phrase.

Their idiot Commies at the "Chicago Tribune." No wonder CPUSA got its start in Chicago.

[Stepan12]

Here is the real explanation of what the phrase a well regulated militia means and it is nothing to do with what "The Chicago Tribune" says it is

[Disambiguator]

Literally, it means that the American people will retain the right to carry weapons as members of a state militia in order to safeguard their freedom.

Where's that "aw, jeez, not this &&&& again" guy?

[Plain Old American]

If you ask any teacher to parse the 2nd amendment and they spout off about common sense restrictions on gun purchasing and ownership they are not answering the question but bloviating about the political role they have taken on to since they are obviously more capable of reading the plain meaning of the Amendment. It states the rights of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. To parse the 2nd Amendment one must describe the parts of a sentence and which words fulfill that function. What is the Subject of the 2nd Amendment – I think it is the right of the people. The verb – shall and the rest of the predicate – not be infringed. That’s parsing the sentence…

[Robert A Cook PE]

It is noteworthy to remember that not only were these THE VERY PEOPLE involved in the first fights at Lexington and Concord were to TAKE the militia’s arms stored at Concord FROM the patriots.

Earlier then that, the city armory at Williamsburg VA was threatened by the British regulars and the arms stored inside had to be defended BY the Continental irregulars on a moment’s notice.

Also up north past Boston, another raid on a state armory was defeated by horsemen waking up locals after dark. (Girl did the rising that time.)

In their immediate experience of the past 15 years, three times the local MILITIA HAD TO BE ARMED from their homes - independent of the “regulars” in the Army.

[Redcloak]

So much stupid.

[publius911]

This article proves that we need some common sense reform in the spoken and written press.

Obama is working on that as we discuss...
And he is attacking individual expressions of dissent in all forms too, by attempting to criminalize it.

[kiryandil]

Literally, it means that the American people will retain the right to carry weapons as members of a state militia in order to safeguard their freedom.

And, since a state militia can be federalized [become part of the US Army] by the president with a phone call, it shows that the Founding Fathers were worried about the US government being able to take its guns away from itself...

[stevie_d_64]

I’m sorry, I’m going to break with this idea, and say I’ve done my Federal service and if I wish to retain arms of my choosing, I’m sure as hell not going to be under any assumption, I will need to be “Federalized” to retain the same...