Posted on 10/12/2015 5:24:45 AM PDT by rellimpank
History, common sense and reliable data should be the three-legged stool on which legislation concerning gun ownership might be based. Instead, the debate is shaped by once-imagined and now real fear (tyranny), specious reasoning (sophistry), rigid belief systems (ideology) and politics corrupted by money (bribery).
It is a problem unique to America, impervious to change, despite recurring episodes of mass murder and deaths due to guns killing more children or adults in accidents, suicide, murder and domestic violence since 1968 than the total of lives lost in all of America's wars.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution, included in our Bill of Rights (1791) was enacted in the wake of the War of Independence from Britain fought against a mentally deranged monarch and a Parliament that extorted taxes without representation. In the shadow of such tyranny and the absence of a standing army, the amendment granted citizens the right to bear arms as part of a "well-regulated militia", should that become necessary. The sound logic underlying that edict eroded when the United States developed the largest and best equipped standing army on the globe, supported by a voluntary, well-trained and occasionally mobilized reserve.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Let’s just go ahead and revoke the First.
Then we can force all the antis to STFU!
I my view, no arms should be banned under the 2nd Amendment, not RPGs, not even tanks, because it says, "...the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Period. However, the government is under no obligation to sell you an RPG or a tank, but, as written, you are free to make one if you like.
The part of the sentence about a "well regulated militia" is just an explanatory clause, an attempt to explain why it was/is needed, but has no bearing on the heart of the sentence: "shall not be infringed".
And liberals are free to try to change or remove the amendment through Constitutional means. Notice that liberals never mention changing the Constitution; they want the courts to make up a meaning that is not written in it.
That definition is in the Dictionary but is not exclusive. The National government is not based on Webster's Third International Dictionary. The 2nd Amendment does not depend on someone's definition of "militia." "The right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. The first part could be "Literacy, being necessary to the security of a free State," and the effect of the 2nd Amendment would be the same. Possession of arms would not be limited to literate persons. The first clause simply states the reason for the second and states it as a universal. Future generations cannot nullify it by saying that the "necessity" no longer pertains and thus the right no longer applies. The necessity is stated as existing period. A different understanding of the "changed times" or a "different milieu" requires another Amendment to change the right and still be Constitutional. The only possible effect of those first few words of the Amendment could be to change the RKBA from a God-given right to a man deliberated right.
Would someone post the old fake picture of Obama shooting the shotgun at Camp Davis.
YES!
Fine, revoke it and ban guns. I’ll still keep mine and I’ll start a black market business. I’m in charge, not you.
“History, common sense and reliable data should be the three-legged stool on which legislation concerning gun ownership might be based. Instead, the debate is shaped by once-imagined and now real fear (tyranny), specious reasoning (sophistry), rigid belief systems (ideology) and politics corrupted by money (bribery).”
Not a bad first paragraph. Not perfect, but not bad.
Unfortunately the author drifts off into specious reasoning and ideology.
The colonists needed weapons to protect themselves against wild animals. Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Yep, sounds like what we have now. This guy sounds pro 2nd to me
Sure, go ahead and try it.
Perhaps libs will get on board with a convention of states.
See how that works out...
Not quibbling, but please point out where the President derives the authority to cancel a Constitutional Amendment.
Now...as Commander in Chief he can proclaim a national emergency, and ride roughshod over Constitutional guarantees, as Lincoln did when he suspended habeas corpus. But that is subject to Congressional approval after ninety days. It would be a huge, huge leap for Obama to take.
Also, there is a special inviolability to the first ten Amendments which enshrine already extant human rights into the Bill of Rights.
And there is no House or Senate rule that requires more than a two thirds majority to override the President’s intent. Obama is a would-be dictator, but his powers are not as absolute as he would like them to be.
Now, if you are suggesting that the real threat to our freedoms is corruption among Republicans in Congress, then that’s a real issue. Most of them are IMO more interested in keeping their cushy jobs than representing their constituents, and that describes both parties.
In other words, “we have met the enemy, and he is us”.
The professor doesn’t want to defend himself, he is free not elect to exercise his constitutional right.
That said, he has no standing to deprive the rest of us of our fundamental RKBA along with the defense of our lives and property.
We’ll surrender our guns to him and his fascist ilk only with our cold, dead hands. He is on notice that - give us liberty or death remains a rallying cry of American patriots.
From those who gave their lives to make the greatest country on earth a reality.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution, included in our Bill of Rights (1791) was enacted in the wake of the War of Independence from Britain fought against a mentally deranged monarch and a Parliament that extorted taxes without representation. In the shadow of such tyranny and the absence of a standing army, the amendment granted citizens the right to bear arms as part of a "well-regulated militia", should that become necessary. The sound logic underlying that edict eroded when the United States developed the largest and best equipped standing army on the globe, supported by a voluntary, well-trained and occasionally mobilized reserve.
Donald Trump wrote:
The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
So, did you get that, Barry Blackwell?
The Constitution doesn't create the Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
As described in the Declaration of Independence, we as free men and women are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, including the Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Blackwell is a Declaration denier, apparently.
He is also, without any form of mitigation, a first class dunce...
the infowarrior
And exactly how much has that changed? Deranged monarch...check. Parliament extorts taxes...check. Without representation...half check; they represent their own interests rather than ours as often as not.
The well regulated militia phrase only acknowledges the need for and desirability of a citizen militia. It does NOT limit bearing arms to members of that group. The second amendment does not even exclude freed felons or the insane. Even they have the right to self-defense.
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.
