About that Second Amendment . . .

[KingOrfeo]

"A well regulated [i.e., well armed] Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ."

But, it isn't.

No "militia" on the 18-Century model (as opposed to a part-time regular military force like the National Guard) has existed in the U.S. for more than a hundred years, yet we remain a free country.

The FFs feared a large standing army as a threat to freedom, because the kings of Europe used their armies as instruments of domestic rule, and the Yanks had recent experience with the Redcoats being used for the same purpose. They wanted the U.S. to maintain a small standing army and in time of war rely mainly on the citizen militia. Therefore, they added this to the Constitution to make sure it would be easy to find a large number of armed civilians in a crisis.

But they were wrong. The U.S. Army has grown larger and larger over the years, and it has never been used as an instrument of domestic rule except during the special circumstances of Reconstruction. (After which the Posse Comitatus Act was passed to forbid its being so used ever again.) It is no threat to our freedom.

This amendment is completely unnecessary, at least in terms of its intended purpose.

 

[KingOrfeo]

And the militia, BTW, was always intended as an arm of the state, not as an independent countervailing force against the state. The Constitution authorizes the president to command all American militias.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The NRA has an interesting history. It was founded in 1871 by several veteran Civil War officers who had observed that a great many Union soldiers were very poor shots, presumably from never having used firearms in civilian life. For a hundred years the NRA considered itself an organization of and for "sportsmen," i.e., hunters, and its main mission to be training people in firearms safety and marksmanship. As for gun control, the NRA was mostly for it:

The NRA formed its Legislative Affairs Division to update members with facts and analysis of upcoming bills,[29] after the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.[30] Karl Frederick, NRA President in 1934, during congressional NFA hearings testified "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."[31] The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms.[32]

However, the organization was mostly apolitical, and made no lobbying efforts on any side of the issue.

That all changed in 1977:

Until the middle 1970s, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues. However, passage of the GCA galvanized a growing number of NRA gun rights activists, including Harlon Carter. In 1975, it began to focus more on politics and established its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), with Carter as director. The next year, its political action committee (PAC), the Political Victory Fund, was created in time for the 1976 elections.[33]:158 The 1977 annual convention was a defining moment for the organization and came to be known as "The Cincinnati Revolution".[34] Leadership planned to relocate NRA headquarters to Colorado and to build a $30 million recreational facility in New Mexico, but activists within the organization whose central concern was Second Amendment rights defeated the incumbents and elected Carter as executive director and Neal Knox as head of the NRA-ILA.[35][36]

Political expansion

After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans.[37] With a goal to weaken the GCA, Knox's ILA successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 and worked to reduce the powers of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In 1982, Knox was ousted as director of the ILA, but began mobilizing outside the NRA framework and continued to promote opposition to gun control laws.[38]

At the 1991 national convention, Knox's supporters were elected to the board and named staff lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as the executive vice president. The NRA focused its attention on the gun control policies of the Clinton Administration.[39] Knox again lost power in 1997, as he lost reelection to a coalition of moderate leaders who supported movie star Charlton Heston, despite Heston's past support of gun control legislation.[40] In 1994, the NRA unsuccessfully opposed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), but successfully lobbied for the ban's 2004 expiration.[41] Heston was elected president in 1998 and became a highly visible spokesman for the organization. In an effort to improve the NRA's image, Heston presented himself as the voice of reason in contrast to Knox.[42]:262–268

 

[JawnKarTurr]

LOL.....You cut and paste very well and your opinions are that of someone who has no understanding of the subject. Basically you're trolling.

 

[KingOrfeo]

LOL.....You cut and paste very well and your opinions are that of someone who has no understanding of the subject. Basically you're trolling.

I cut and paste from reliable sources that reflect a very clear understanding of the subject.

 

[Comshaw]

While a militia probably isn't necessary any more, quoting half of anything to bolster your position is disingenuous. The rest:"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A constitutional right no different then the 1st, 4th or any other part of the bill of rights.


Comshaw

 

[KingOrfeo]

While a militia probably isn't necessary any more, quoting half of anything to bolster your position is disingenuous. The rest:"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A constitutional right no different then the 1st, 4th or any other part of the bill of rights.


Comshaw

But the amendment embodies what lawyers call "legislative intent," clearly stated in the first clause of the sentence, and it is a misguided and unnecessary intent, that's the point.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

I cut and paste from reliable sources that reflect a very clear understanding of the subject.

I didn't say the sources weren't I'm saying you're interrupting them wrong. You're trying to make the facts fit your argument and you're doing it badly.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I didn't say the sources weren't I'm saying you're interrupting them wrong.

You mean "interpreting." Please explain how.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

You mean "interpreting." Please explain how.

Ah auto-correct....Well I've explained why you're wrong about an armed rebellion. I've explained how you and others don't understand what militia means, and how you don't understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I simply think you're trolling and there is no response you'll accept since your mind is made up.

 

[OldJourno]

The Founders made it clear that the 2nd Amendment would allow for the public to overthrow a tyrannical government.
I can also see it as a deterrent to foreign powers. Beat the U.S. military in the Los Angeles Basin and then take on 2 million pissed citizens, some of whom are veterans.

 

[BotanyBoy]

This amendment is completely unnecessary, at least in terms of its intended purpose.

Come and take it you commie fucker I dare you!!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9c/fe/c0/9cfec0ec3cdd529e53265f33d53d8904.jpg

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ah auto-correct....Well I've explained why you're wrong about an armed rebellion.

No, you haven't.

I've explained how you and others don't understand what militia means, and how you don't understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

No, you haven't.

I simply think you're trolling and there is no response you'll accept since your mind is made up.

No, that would be yours, if "mind" is not too strong a word.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Come and take it you commie fucker I dare you!!

I dare.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Founders made it clear that the 2nd Amendment would allow for the public to overthrow a tyrannical government.

No, they didn't, not in any way. The Constitution authorizes the president to command the militia.

 

[OldJourno]

No, they didn't, not in any way. The Constitution authorizes the president to command the militia.

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

 

[JawnKarTurr]

No, you haven't.



No, you haven't.



No, that would be yours, if "mind" is not too strong a word.

Actually yes you just need to go find the posts. If you are a lawyer which I highly doubt you can't be very good. You ignore the posts you don't like and keep repeating the same stuff over and over. You're a troll. I'm always open to new facts and ideas despite your cheap shot. Your argument has been made by others and done much better, but always disproved. You've already conceded it's a right from your first post, but you don't think it's for military purposes. The founders had just fought a war against their central government, and they knew it could happen again, so they made sure to give the people not the states the right to bear arms along with many other important rights. You don't grasp that fact, but most people do. At least you're not making the more pathetic argument the 2nd Amendment is only in place to support slavery.

 

[toeskr]

KO,
Get out of the city and calm down. Come out and breathe the fresh air and we'll burn some ammo through my awesome weapons. You all get too wound up with shit that really doesn't matter in the long run. Bot will bring the buds, I'll bring the drinks. Relax and let the weapons retorts soothe you. Alcohol, tobacco and firearms are America's past time.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Bill of Rights was a protection of the individual.

It was not a charter of group liberties.

This has been done to death.

You are wrong.

Period.

.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The wording of the Second Amendment is imprecise, but it doesn't matter. As a society we have determined that civilians have an absolute right to be 'armed.' The only discussion is what 'arms' are allowed. We are only arguing over where in a spectrum between a sling-shot and an atomic bomb that right lies.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Actually yes you just need to go find the posts.

No, I don't.

But you are free to copy or link them in this thread.

 

[Rightguide]

But the amendment embodies what lawyers call "legislative intent," clearly stated in the first clause of the sentence, and it is a misguided and unnecessary intent, that's the point.

The first part of the Amendment merely points to that part of the original constitution (Art I Section 8) that it intends to amend, by adding a reaffirmation that the existing right, predating the Constitution, of the people to be armed shall not be infringed.

Art 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"

Congress already had the power to do what many say the second amendment implies, to create and arm a militia.

The bill of rights was not written to increase the power of government but to limit it. It is a catalog of individual and state rights, not government power.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The first part of the Amendment merely points to that part of the original constitution (Art I Section 8) that it intends to amend, by adding a reaffirmation that the existing right, predating the Constitution . . .

The only rights predating the Constitution are common-law rights, and I know of no common-law right to bear arms. "Natural rights" are meaningless and nonexistent, whatever Thomas Jefferson might have to say to the contrary.

 

[Rightguide]

The only rights predating the Constitution are common-law rights, and I know of no common-law right to bear arms. "Natural rights" are meaningless and nonexistent, whatever Thomas Jefferson might have to say to the contrary.

Then in that case you cannot read with comprehension. The terms "the "right" of the people to..." implies an existing right that therefore predates the Constitution.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Then in that case you cannot read with comprehension. The terms "the "right" of the people to..." implies an existing right that therefore predates the Constitution.

Just because the Constitution refers to it does not mean it ever existed.