He eventually lost his mind.
Posted on 06/21/2022 9:02:55 AM PDT by Houserino
The Second Amendment is killing us so the gun industry can rake in massive profits — we can’t keep interpreting it as an absolute right for every single citizen to own a gun.
In the week following the May 24 massacre in Uvalde, Texas, the Sioux City Bandits, a professional indoor football team from western Iowa, had planned a giveaway of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle as a “Military Night” promotion, as they had done a year earlier. After widespread criticism, the Sioux City Journal reported that the team’s Missouri-based owner, J.R. Bond, said canceling or postponing the giveaway “didn’t even approach my radar screen.” Bond added that “some people’s ‘obsession with a piece of metal is overblown’ and that the negative comments came from East Coast residents who are ‘driving electric cars and eating wheat grass.’”
For the record: One of the main critics was the local co-owner of the State Steel Supply Company in Sioux City, who said he would end his sponsorship of the Bandits because “this promotion is beyond tone deaf and is incredibly insensitive to current affairs.” (Also, for the record: You can buy both wheat grass and electric cars in Sioux City.)
J.R. Bond was right about one thing — that some people’s “obsession with a piece of metal is overblown.” In fact, if lots of people did not have overblown obsessions with guns, he wouldn’t have been using one as a promotion, and his team would likely be named something other than “the Bandits.”
The massacre in Uvalde was horrific. An eighteen-year-old man wielding an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle on May 24 murdered twenty-one people (nineteen of them children) and wounded seventeen others. We have heard this kind of gut-punching news too many times before, and each time millions hope this time will be the event that finally changes the country’s toxic relationship with guns. When will Congress do something, anything to stop the unrelenting deaths by firearms?
The Second Amendment is an affirmation of a pre-existing Natural Right to self-protection, and a prohibition from the Federal Government from nullifying that pre-existing Natural Right.
In 1760, the estimated population of America was 1,593,625. For 6800 deaths, that would be 0.004267 of the population killed.
in 2020, the estimated population of America is 325,000,000. For 45,222 deaths, that would be 0.0001372 of the population killed.
Therefore, present day America is actually 31 times safer (with regards to guns).
“Shall Not Be Infringed” is just as powerful a restriction.
Agreed.
And it is backed up by the most powerful words of the Constitution: We the People
(capitalizations matter)
LOL!
That was a major error on your part. You clearly do NOT know the text of the Second Amendment, which you pretend to support.
You should be embarrassed and apologetic.
Too late now, though. Your best bet would be to slink off into the shadows, hanging your head in shame.
DISmissed!!!
Ok. Let's examine that statement. See this post on an FR thread for some interesting information on this 18 year old shooter in Uvalde. If even only half true...it begs some serious attention.
Yep...a Bushie.
Likely a Romney voter.
DISmissed?
Like Colonel Klink?
A fascist functionary?
Very clever Benito.
” What Is the Second Amendment for, Exactly? “
A clue for the clueless: For self protection of course but to protect the Republic from tyranny of government which is what we’re seeing these days.
“When will Congress do something, anything to stop the unrelenting deaths by firearms?”............Congress might stop some/most of this if they attack it the right way, which they never have to my knowledge. Those who are pushing this so heavily are always of the same mind that the gun is the problem. Wrong. Actually, there are probably several things that could be done, that might help. All of them would take time; they probably wouldn’t bear immediate results. The people who decide to take on these problems need to think back & learn the things that were in effect at a time when the school shootings & other illegalities were not the problem that they are today. School & public prayer would be one example they might look to. Just my thoughts.
“Shall not be infringed” is a vastly MORE powerful restriction.
On its face, the First Amendment only restricts the Congress, as the Congress is specifically mentioned. (”Congress shall make no law respecting etc.”) On its face, the Second Amendment is more general, affecting not only the Congress but all governments established under the Constitution: Federal, State, County, City, Township, whatever.
“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.”
Note that the phrase “We the People” does not appear in the Second Amendment.
Note that the phrase “We the People” does not appear in the Second Amendment.
Still nit-picking?
You must one of them there legal types that think only lawyers can correctly interpret the Constitution.
GFL in the Revolution because once the lawyers come together and decide that “according to current legal interpretation” guns can be confiscated and outlawed, you’ll be hurtin’.
And I won’t be leveling my Bushmaster450 in your defense.
To deter totalitarians and would be totalitarians. Its obviously quite effective or they wouldn’t be trying so hard for so long to deny us our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
“Exactly.”
An affectation of the bullshit kind. Angers me, lots.
Exactly = It’s been discussed before but let me get to the nut.
The reason I’m armed is shoot you if you ever threaten my life.
I’m educating you.
If you were a real man, you’d be grateful.
As is, you’re revealing yourself to be an ignorant, arrogant, unintelligent, petulant little child. Be careful with that AR ... you might hurt yourself. A Daisy Red Ryder is more your speed.
Go ahead: Stamp your little feet, pout, throw a tantrum, and call me names ...
I promise to laugh at you!
We don’t do anything, punk.
Hope you’re under 50.
We should outlaw murder.
He eventually lost his mind.
Actually, your opinion was wrong.
You wrote: "...To consider or introduce such a change (Amendment or regulation) is a violation of their oath (fiduciary malfeasance) and a violation of the Constitution..."
Regarding the first amendment (which you quoted), you are correct. But you are incorrect regarding the second amendment.
The phrase "well-regulated militia" comes from Congress' power in Article I Section 8:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;To NOT regulate the militia would be a violation of their oath. Where I think your intent was is the suggestion that Congress is abusing their regulatory role to prevent a well-regulated militia (regulate it out of existence), instead of regulating it to make it an effective irregular force.
It's true that Article I Section 8 was ratified before the second amendment, and it's wording may have troubled the states (as it troubles you). That's why the second amendment begins with "...being necessary to the security of a free State..." The states wanted to make it explicitly clear to Congress that armed militias were a right of the states to protect their sovereignty (along with the ninth and tenth amendments) as a condition of delegating powers to the federal government.
Taking the second amendment and Article I Section 8 together, the states expected Congress to limit their role to setting standards, but the actual execution of the arming and training of militias was left to the states to enact.
In fact, it wasn't the militia (the armed citizenry) that the Founders were afraid of, it was a standing army that could be abused by a tyrannical ruler. This is a complete 180 from how Congress sees the militia today. The Congress of the 18th century wanted a trained and armed citizenry to protect the fledgling nation. They were afraid of the states establishing their own armies (See Federalist #8). This is why they made Congress have to renew the funding for the federal army every two years as a check against a ruler who gets adventurous with it.
This is why the states WANTED Congress to provide leadership in normalizing the militia, but not the authority to control the militia.
-PJ
So what is the Second Amendment for? Created in 1791, it was for well-regulated militias of white males to purportedly check federal power, and unofficially to put down rebelling slaves and push Native Americans off their land. Now, to boost an industry and Republican politics of fear, the Second Amendment has been redefined as an individual right for anyone to own guns. Gun owners — white owners still preferred — have become unregulated.
Dr. Christopher R. Martin is a scholar of journalism and expert in critical media and information literacy, Martin has been a nationally-recognized leader in news analysis and news accuracy. He teaches at the University of Northern Iowa.
One primary interest is to understand how news media outlets abandoned working class audiences in favor of moneyed “upscale” consumers. Martin has authored two books on this subject: The latest is No Longer Newsworthy: How the Mainstream Media Abandoned the Working Class (Cornell University Press, 2019), winner of the 2020 C.L.R. James Award from the Working Class Studies Association, and a Choice Outstanding Academic Title for 2019. He is also author of an award-winning book on how labor unions are covered in the news media, Framed! Labor and the Corporate Media (Cornell University Press, 2004). According to Martin, the media’s shift in audience has led to drastic consequences to the political and economic landscape. Martin is a contributing scholar to the Center for Journalism & Liberty and a regular contributor to the Working-Class Perspectives blog.
Martin’s research and writing has been published in Journalism Studies, Journal of Communication Inquiry, Communication Research, Labor Research Journal, Perspectives on Politics, Popular Music and Society, Journal of Communication, Z magazine, Editor & Publisher, Huff Post, and Nieman Reports.
With Richard Campbell and Bettina Fabos, he is co-author of Media and Culture: Mass Communication in a Digital Age (Bedford/St. Martin’s), now in its 12th edition, and Media Essentials: A Brief Introduction (Bedford/St. Martin’s), now in its 5th edition. Martin previously taught at Miami University (Ohio), and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. He is a recipient of the State of Iowa’s Board of Regents Award for Faculty Excellence (2004) and the College of Humanities and Fine Arts Faculty Excellence Award (2010). Martin is also vice president of United Faculty, an AAUP affiliate and the faculty union at UNI since 1976.
“The 2nd Amendment is to stop groups like Jacobins”
And the DNC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.