The 2nd Amendment will never be repealed.

[darkangel218]

It just not going to happen. For the simple reason that the majority of people are supporting it and don't want to give up their weapons.
I know its hard to come to terms to that.
So-rry!

[mdavies013]

1. I fully support the 2nd amendment as it was written

And implemented at this outset of this nation. The issue is that 2nd amendment fanatics like the ... And ony see the right to bare arms and forget what comes before it. They also forget that we had Militia Acts that set up the well regulated militia. They forget that the National Guard tool the place of the militia. Then they think that they have the right to own any damn thing that they want.

[darkangel218]

4. Actually, youre only partially correct.

You forgot about the unorganized militia:

The reserve militia [3] or unorganized militia, which is presently defined by the Militia Act of 1903 to consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(That is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft.) Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.

[gcomeau]

6. Nobody is forgetting anything.

The fact that the way the nation dealt with the militia hugely and radically changed in 1903 is the fucking reason the 2nd became a ridiculous anachronism. That was just pointed out to you in the post you were replying to.

[jmg257]

81. Right. So which of the 2 classes of militia codifed in law is "well-regulated"?

And so is "necessary" per the 2nd? (although of course its intent has been much obsoleted by we, the people since then)

Give you a hint - only one class is armed and trained and ORGANIZED per federal regulations.

[darkangel218]

84. They are, 18 to 65 y old.

Anyone eligible for draft falls under that category don't think the draft won't be "regulated".

[jmg257]

85. You missed the hint. Let's Start over...2 classes of militia. One is well-regulated, and one isn't.

One will be used in federal service as cited in the constitution. One won't.

s311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

&quot b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

s333
&quot a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies. - (1) The
President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to -"



By definition, only the National Guard is a well-regulated militia. And only the National Guard is codifed to be called forth in federal service.

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. Since the Second Amendment DID NOT confer any right whatsoever, your words carry no weight.

None.

The Second Amendment prevents the government from infringing on a right known to have existed before the Constitution was written.

"...endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". Look it up.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. That horse is dead. You can quit beating it. N/T

[veganlush]

2. its not about repeal

Its about interpretation. Well regulated militia was not there just to use up extra ink. The day it was scribed infrigements were already in place and not questioned. How do you explain that?

[BlueCaliDem]

11. *crickets* eom

[Eleanors38]

13. How is it "explained?" Many times in this group...

There is a body of scholarly work on the Second, and the great bulk of it asserts that 2A recognizes an individual RKBA, with the feds announcing its limited interest in that right because of its duty (as defined in the Articles) to call up the militia. The states may regulate RKBA as long as the regulation doesn't infringe on right to keep and bear arm as guaranteed in the Second. The body of scholarly work which views 2A as an individual rught is itself viewed as the "standard model."

This has been discussed and analyzed in this forum/group for years.

See: Heller and McDonald decisions, among others.

[bluedigger]

3. And gay marriage and pot will never be legal, either.

You forgot those.

[darkangel218]

5. Comparing apples with oranges

Like I said, repealing our right to keep and bear arms will never happen.

Keep trying though, if that makes you happy!

[bluedigger]

8. I'm unimpressed by your supernatural powers of prognostication.

But keep on bringing it!

[LonePirate]

7. The percentage of Americans who own guns continues to decrease and gun massacres continue unabated

There will come a day when this country wises up and joins other modern countries by repealing the Second Amendment and banning guns. It may not happen for another 50 years; but the numbers are moving in that direction.

[gejohnston]

10. actually the other modern nation don't ban private ownership of guns

if the poll that shows the decrease is accurate, it puts current US gun ownership somewhere between France and Switzerland, but lower than Canada, Norway, Switzerland, and Finland.

Even though the poll was done by MAIG, so I doubt the accuracy, the same polling firm apparently has been doing it for awhile. The claim I have seen is accompanied by a graph that shows gun ownership going back to 1950s levels.

[darkangel218]

14. Is that so?

Do you have any stats to back that up? From what I know gun ownership has increased.

50 years? Lol ok. Not gonna happen.

[premium]

34. I doubt that firearm ownership is decreasing,

what is probably happening is that fewer and fewer people are refusing to acknowledge that they own firearms, I know I wouldn't admit it in some poll.

Because of the ongoing attempt to stigmatize gun owners, it is my firm belief that gun owners are basically telling pollsters no, or are telling them it's none of their business.

Of course, that's just my opinion, but I think it's a pretty good one.

[hack89]

16. The trend is towards expanding civil liberities.

it happened with the 2A and will happen with gay marriage and pot.

[bluedigger]

23. By that logic, crew served weapons for everybody!

The trend is for society to swing from one extreme to another, and stabilize somewhere in the middle. The current interpretation of the 2A is extreme, and likely to regress. This is one civil liberty trend that the US is following the rest of the globe, not leading. Even universal health care is a more advanced proposition in the US at this time. Do you also think that we are going to eventually legalize polygamy and meth?

[gejohnston]

26. not that extreme at all really

it is legal to own a crew serviced weapon, if you have the money, lots of it, and jump through the NFA hoops. Of course, the folks who have the monopoly on them are not likely to sell you an operable one or sell ammo. You will have to hire the trained crew to operate and maintain it. I found an inoperable 105mm howitzer for $20K.

apparently, you can own one even in the UK
http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/

about those .50 cal rifles
http://www.fcsa.co.uk/

[bluedigger]

43. Everything I just said in my post #42 goes double for you.

I have no interest in "discussion" with a one issue ideologue.

[sylvi]

61. Well how convenient for you to lose interest in discussion

right after he neutralized your snarky assertion about "crew served weapons".

[hack89]

35. And people can marry their dogs!

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

one thing to keep in mind - this extreme interpretation of the 2A coincides with a steady 20 year decline in gun violence to historically low levels. We have cut our murder rate in half since the 1980's.

[bluedigger]

42. Correlation is not causation.

But you are fully aware of that. I'm going to stop replying to you, because the only time I ever see you on this board is to argue support for RKBA. You may have other progressive concerns, but for me it is just trading opinions with a one issue ideologue, and quite unsatisfying. I look forward to the day when I see you contributing something, anything, productive to the forum outside of this narrow issue, but I have little hope for it. I'll continue to express my opinions, on gun control and many other things, but our conversations are done. In the meantime, you keep taking up the slack for those who no longer can.

[hack89]

46. Are you familiar with the gun control echo chamber?

you would be very comfortable there - dissent is not allowed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

[CokeMachine]

48. That group.

You were the first blocked and I am the latest. I did PWI yesterday and forgot which group I was posting in. I've had disagreements in the past with three of the hosts so I knew it was just a matter of time. Oh well, life goes on.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. Those do not require constitutional amendments. N/T

[gejohnston]

51. pot was legal until 1937

there is evidence of church sanctioned gay marriage during the middle ages.

[melm00se]

69. I am not picking a fight

but can you provide a link to that?

[gejohnston]

70. no sweat

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/beliefs-study-medieval-rituals-same-sex-unions-raises-question-what-were-they.html

[BlueCaliDem]

9. I fully support the 2nd Amendment as the Founders and the courts have intended.

Not the bastardized, for-profit-for-merchants-of-murder's version that happened through the District of Columbia v Heller case in 2008. Hundreds of years before that, it was always been a GIVEN that the 2nd Amendment did NOT intend that every American had the {unregulated} right to have as many weapons as he can mortgage his house, his children's college funds, and his painfully taxed wages for. But it appears that propaganda has worked well on you

[gejohnston]

12. actually,

there is no historical nor court precedence to support your version. The "collective rights" theory did not exist until the 1930s, and was ignored by SCOTUS in US v Miller.

[BlueCaliDem]

17. U.S. v Miller was 1939. But you forget Hickman v Block 1996.

In the case of Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), decided last April 5th, the plaintiff had been denied a concealed carry license by various city and county authorities in California. He sued on the grounds that the denials were an infringement of his Second Amendment rights.

The federal appeals court confirmed that Hickman had no standing to bring the lawsuit. In brief, the concept of "standing" deals with whether the party bringing a suit has a real grievance of a nature that the law can recognize. The question in Hickman's case, as stated by the appeals court, was "whether the Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce the right to keep and bear arms." The court concluded that Hickman could show no legal injury, and dismissed his case.

The court said: "Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed."

Hickman had argued that "individuals have a right to complain about the manner in which a state arms its citizens." The court failed "to see the logic in this argument":

The Second Amendment creates a right, not a duty. It does not oblige the states to keep armed militia, or to arm their citizens generally, although some states do preserve, nominally at least, a broad individual right to bear arms as a foundation for their state militia....Even in states which profess to maintain a citizen militia, an individual may not rely on this fact to manipulate the Constitution's legal injury requirement by arguing that a particular weapon of his admits some military use, or that he himself is a member of the armed citizenry from which the state draws its militia....Because the right to keep an armed militia is a right held by the states alone, Hickman has failed to show "injury" as required by constitutional standing doctrine.

The appeals court was not making new law; it merely followed United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court's definitive statement on the Second Amendment. Miller was indicted for carrying a sawed-off shotgun across state lines, and argued that the Second Amendment gave him the right to possess such a weapon. The Court held that "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The Hickman court, citing this language, noted that "it is only in furtherance of state security that 'the right to keep and bear arms' is finally proclaimed."

In a very significant footnote, the Hickman court also noted that "the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states." What this means is that Second Amendment rights are not among the federal rights that were extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, states were not legally bound by anything in the bill of rights. Therefore, behavior that would be illegal, for example, under the First or Fifth Amendments if engaged in by the federal government was legal if carried out by state governments. The court is saying that the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizens no right to complain of Second Amendment violations by state governments.

Pro-gun forces certainly believe that 20th century Second Amendment jurisprudence is dead wrong, just as I believe that court decisions upholding the constitutionality of the Communications Act of 1934 are dead wrong. What we are both saying is that the courts, in a given instance, wrote the wrong story. We are entitled to our opinions. The perniciousness of the pro-gun forces, particularly the NRA, is not that they disagree with the courts, but that they lie to their members and to the public about what the law says.
http://www.spectacle.org/996/2d.html

I maintain that the District of Columbia v Heller case, thanks to RightwingWooWoo Scalia, destroyed the original intent by the Founding Fathers and bastardized our 2nd Amendment for the benefit of America's Merchants of Murder, to the point that it should be repealed - and repeal of an Amendment has precedence. Think Prohibition.

*Federal law {the U.S. Constitution} supersedes State laws. Always.

[gejohnston]

21. the circit court in Miller said

NFA violated the second amendment, what's your point?

I think he would have had a better case under the 14th amendment because California's may issue system, like New York's, is arbitrary and doesn't actually have standards. Although I doubt it is as bad as NY. The ATF allows most states to waive NICS checks to concealed carry permit holders. The ATF does not allow NY that waiver because their system does not meet their standards.

[hansberrym]

63. The 9th Cicuit itself has rejected the States Rights theory espoused in Hickman.

The 9th Circuit in Silveira conjured a COllective Right to replace the bogus States' Rights theory of Hickman.

However even the Heller dissent rejected the Collective Rights theory of SIlveira in which individuals had no standing to bring a second amendment defense. The Heller dissent recognized there is an individual right associated with the second amendment (rejecting both Hickman and Silveira) and instead embraced the limited individual right theory which had been rejected out of hand in Silveira.

The Heller dissent also ignored the early state court cases regarding the right to keep and bear arms, and for good reason, those state court cases do not support the States' Rights, Collective Rights, or enrolled militiamen only interpretations which have been trotted out by deniers of the standard model (traditional individual rights model).


http://www.guncite.com/court/state/


We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

[BlueCaliDem]

64. Isn't guncite a rightwingwoowoo site?

It's curious to me that a DEMOCRAT would even go there.

Soooo the Hickman {what an appropriate name for a gun fanatic} was overturned? Can you provide a link - preferably not one from a RightwingWooWoo site.

Thanks!

[gejohnston]

67. no

it has no partisan views and is relatively even handed, calling out propaganda from both sides. Check it out before you judge.
http://www.guncite.com/

[BlueCaliDem]

20. You might also want to read a PBS report on how CONservatives reinvented the 2nd Amendment.

Here ya go:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/how-conservatives-reinvented-the-second-amendment/

Describe early understandings of the Second Amendment. Was there uncertainty or ambiguity about what it meant?

The overwhelming consensus was that the Second Amendment gave state militias a right to obtain and bear arms, but it did it not give individuals any rights. … The words of the Second Amendment are ungrammatical and difficult to understand in the best of circumstances. But if you look at the history and context of the amendment, including other references to state militias in the Constitution, it suggests that the amendment only applied to state militias.

Now what makes this subject so difficult in the modern world is that state militias don’t exist anymore, so we have no familiarity with what a state militia is. But it was simply taken as a given in constitutional law that the Second Amendment did not give individuals a right to bear arms.

[gejohnston]

22. not a very well written article

nor was it researched. But that's what happens when you depend on "underwriters" aka advertisers like ADM.
If you read SCOTUS cases dating back to the 19th century, the state laws were upheld based on theory that the BoR were not incorporated against the states.

The first handgun ban that I know of was struck down based on the 2A, Nunn v Georgia about thirty years before the NRA existed.

[BlueCaliDem]

25. I would take Jeffrey Toobin's writings over a pro-gun individual's any day.

He has more credibility than you. You were probably one of the many who said ObamaCare is unconstitutional, Social Security is unconstitutional, Medicare is unconstitutional, and Obama is Kenyan.

From Toobin's wikipedia page:

Toobin was born in New York City,[3] the son of former ABC News and CBS News correspondent Marlene Sanders, and news broadcasting producer Jerome Toobin. He attended Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School in New York City, Phillips Exeter Academy and Harvard College. At Harvard, he covered sports for The Harvard Crimson, where his column carried the name "Inner Toobin." He graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1982 and earned a Truman Scholarship. He graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude with a law degree in 1986, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Pretty impressive, eh? And he disagrees with you. I'll stick with him.

[gejohnston]

28. personal attack

and appeal to authority.
I voted for Obama twice and no. I was disappointed that he didn't give single payer, like myself, a seat at the table but came up with reheated Nixoncare.

There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[BlueCaliDem]

31. No personal attack. Skin might be too thin, though.

Sure. Right. Uh-huh. You voted for Obama.

Single-payer was never part of his campaign. As an Obama voter, you'd know that. The Public Option, on the other hand, was.

ObamaCare is more extensive than you've been willing to learn. The Public Option is on its way and two U.S. backed health insurance companies will open in October 2013. You'd know that if you did your research.

As for liberal law professors . . . is that so surprising to you after GWBush stole the WH? Really?

Fact of the matter is, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, history tells a different story just as I've pointed out and what you've chosen to ignore. Courts and judges decide the interpretation of our laws, and unfortunately, too many Americans keep sending Republicans back to the WH and Congress, and they get to decide what judges get to sit where. So the legal system is being hijacked by CONservative judges that decide cases based on ONE CONservative ideal: Corporations uber alles.

[gejohnston]

36. I know he didn't campaign on it

but there were single payer advocates wanting a seat at the table during the debate. I'm guessing you followed the issue on a very superficial level, but not as shallow as you grasp the gun issue.

Courts and judges decide the interpretation of our laws, and unfortunately, too many Americans keep sending Republicans back to the WH and Congress, and they get to decide what judges get to sit where. So the legal system is being hijacked by CONservative judges that decide cases based on ONE CONservative ideal: Corporations uber alles.

As Norman Goldman and Mike Papantinio pointed out more than once, judges are politicians in black robes.

[BlueCaliDem]

38. Single-payer advocates don't know the Congress as this president does.

He damn well knew he couldn't get single-payer through - and NO Democrats in the Senate were ready to scrap the "65 and over" clause in Medicare to do it. Again, he didn't campaign on single-payer, but he HAS campaigned on the Public Option, and he's coming through on that. He got it done.

As Norman Goldman and Mike Papantinio pointed out more than once, judges are politicians in black robes.

And this should be spread wide and far so that this misplaced respect we have in our judicial system is shaken to the core. Otherwise, we'll be doing Corporate America's bidding by continuing to believe we even have one meant to protect us.

[gejohnston]

39. yeah,

that could be the case. I still would prefer to lower the age of Medicare from 65 to birth.

And this should be spread wide and far so that this misplaced respect we have in our judicial system is shaken to the core. Otherwise, we'll be doing Corporate America's bidding by continuing to believe we even have one meant to protect us.

I agree.

[BlueCaliDem]

45. So would I.

But the U.S. supported Public Option is a step in that direction. We still need to see how many people will sign up for the U.S. public option that the Heritage Foundation fears will be the robust public option Liberals have been hoping for. They say they need a minimum of 750,000 people to sign up. I believe that won't be a problem. President Obama promised to offer the American people the same health insurance people of Congress are getting, and this Public Option will do just that.

[Marengo]

54. How about a cite to a post where gejohnston states he didn't vote for Obama.

[BlueCaliDem]

55. Oh come on. What DUer here would openly admit they didn't vote for Obama on a Democratic Party site?

[Marengo]

56. What is the basis of your assumption that he didn't?

[BlueCaliDem]

57. He doesn't need you to hold his hand, Marengo. So stop it.

But to answer your question, how about reading the thread before you respond to it?

Here...I'll make it easier for you since you appear to have difficulty on your own:

Reply #25
I voted for Obama twice and no. I was disappointed that he didn't give single payer, like myself, a seat at the table but came up with reheated Nixoncare.

ObamaCare was passed in his first term. If he was so disappointed, why did he vote for him the second time? Couple that to, and I repeat, that no sane DUer will ever admit on this site that they didn't vote for the Democratic choice for president, maybe you get the picture now.

[Marengo]

58. It's you who doesn't "get the picture"...

You've essentially accused gejohnston of dishonesty and offer no real proof to support your accusation. I asked for it, and received only supposition. What does that say about your integrity?

[BlueCaliDem]

59. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Still holding his hand.

I have not "essentially" accused your pal of dishonesty. That's what you're reading into it. If I don't believe you, that doesn't mean I'm accusing you of anything. I just don't believe you. Period.

My integrity is just fine, and if I lose your worship, well, know that I'll live on.

[Marengo]

60. Nope, looks like your integrity may be on life support...

If you don't believe his statement is true, than what else is it?

No one, of course, is requiring you believe it. However, you chose to respond in such a manner that suggests you do not regard his statement as factual. With a response of this nature, you have accused him of lying. Had that not been your intent, why did you respond? You could have simply let it pass without comment. Your comment is your assertion of dishonesty.

[BlueCaliDem]

66. Give it up, Marengo.

Holding his hand as if he needs it is sad. And my integrity is peachy-clean no matter what a faceless poster posing as a Democrat says about it. Hows that for integrity?

[Marengo]

75. Posing, eh? I suppose it's too much to ask for proof?

Hows that for integrity?

Hard to tell, I'm not seeing any.

[BlueCaliDem]

76. Here's proof:

Your own pro-gun posts. I hope they're paying you well.

And congrats! You're the second person since I've been a DUers since 2004 who's made my ignore list.

[Marengo]

77. LOL!...Well, I guess I'll have your integrity to keep me company...

since you've put that on your ignore list as well.

[gejohnston]

62. actually, you did

accuse me of being dishonest.

ObamaCare was passed in his first term. If he was so disappointed, why did he vote for him the second time? Couple that to, and I repeat, that no sane DUer will ever admit on this site that they didn't vote for the Democratic choice for president, maybe you get the picture now.

I wasn't so disappointed that would cause me to vote for Mitt or Johnson, both of which are philosophically opposed to ObamaCare (which has many good provisions) and single payer. A good analogy would be a gun control advocate writing in Ted Nugent because they didn't think Obama didn't do enough on gun control during his first term. That's absurd.
I'm not a single issue voter, and I don't kick aside the good because it isn't perfect.

[BlueCaliDem]

65. Who's being dishonest now?

That quote was in response to Marengo's supposition. Do you guys ever bother reading the thread timeline before writing these silly posts? Or do you just make shit up to feel like you're winning? And, although from your posts I can tell you're too Left for Mittney, you're forgetting Jill Stein - THE darling of the Left during the election. But to be honest, I saw you as leaning more to the right of Mittney. I believed that you were more of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul supporter. It fits in with your Libertarian view, especially on reasonable gun laws - in that, you don't want ANY.

[gejohnston]

68. Jill who?

reasonable gun laws:
you either need to read more of my posts, or we have a different definition of reasonable. Current federal gun laws are reasonable more the most part. I supported the MT amendment, do not support national reciprocity
(mostly on 10A grounds), the main bill had too many problems that made it unreasonable. Current laws need to be reformed to become more reasonable. For example, a single shot rifle with a 15 inch barrel or a single shot shotgun with a 17 inch barrel are regulated the same as machine guns.
The problem with gun laws are that they are often written by people who know nothing about what they are trying to regulate and they don't actually address the problem they are trying to address. Also, judging from many of the rants around here, it really has more to do with cultural imperialism than public safety.
Johnson and Paul:
I agree with them to the same degree Bernie Sanders and Thom Hartmann do. Libertarianism today implies some type of archnocapitolsim or Ayn Rand that loves Austrian economics. We did that, and got the company town.

Individualism and having strong communities are not mutually exclusive. If one were to study the "old west" or "frontier cowboy culture" without the B western tripe about high noon duels, that person would get good grasp of what I'm talking about.

That quote was in response to Marengo's supposition. Do you guys ever bother reading the thread timeline before writing these silly posts?

I honestly thought you were accusing me of lying, the rest dosn't matter. Time stamps don't count.

[Lizzie Poppet]

73. Arguing on the basis of credentials is a fallacy.

"argumentum ad vericundiam"

The matter of the meaning of the second amendment isn't just a legal argument, it's a linguistic one. My credentials in the latter area are a match for Mr. Toobin's in the former (legal) one. Does that mean those credentials constitute a valid argument in favor of my interpretation of the meaning of the propositions comprising the amendment? Nope...

[aquart]

15. Repeal is a rightwing fundraising fantasy.

But do keep striking hard at the big straw man.

To which well-regulated militia do you belong?

[darkangel218]

19. To the kitten type.

If you're that curious.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Don't expect a cogent answer. Pro-unregulated-gun-rights advocates have a one-track

mind when it comes to ensuring that the United States' gun laws remain unregulated so that we continue to have the best armed mass-murderers in the world.

If one wants to drive a car, we need to have training for it before we can get our driver's license. When the country arms 18-year-olds for war to kill in the name of the United States, they need to be trained. But when a psychopath wants to shoot innocent people in a theater, or shoot up a school, or hunt and slaughter little children behind their desks - well, they should have that choice because they have a constitutional Second Amendment right to do so.

Common sense doesn't enter into the minds of these fanatics.

[gejohnston]

29. how does a law be unregulated?

guns haven't been unregulated on a federal level since the 1930s.

well, they should have that choice because they have a constitutional Second Amendment right to do so.

appeal to emotion, and absurd. There is no right to murder.

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Since 2006 we haven't had a full-time ATF director, 'member? And the Republicans in Congress are

fighting hard to keep it that way.

Laws are just words written in books, and aren't worth the paper and ink if they're not regulated by a full-time agency tasked with enforcing those laws. Understand now?

Being against background checks, being against common sense gun control, and seeing more and more people committing mass murders with high-powered firearms while people like you don't want anything to change because you're oh so afraid that the black helicopters and MIB are gonna drop in from the night skies to grab your guns away, give these psychopaths every opportunity they could ever wish for to commit those bloody mass-murders of innocent people. And through the misinterpretation of the 2A, you and your fellow gun-luvrs want to continue to ensure they'll be able to because, hey, those massacred aren't your kids. They aren't your family. They aren't you. So why should you care, right?

[gejohnston]

33. there is an acting director

and laws are being enforced. The nominated director was a poor choice for a number of reasons. One of which, he, during the debate over old AWB, he had a news person fire an AK 47 from the hip on full auto, which he knew was unsafe and knew could not be purchased in any gun store or gun show because it is a machine gun, but claiming "these are on the street". There may be full auto AKs on the street, but not from Wal Mart or any gun show.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1119/Andrew-Traver-Is-Obama-s-choice-for-ATF-chief-an-antigun-zealot

Why the current nominee is blocked, or why the last one nominated by Bush was blocked, I have no idea.

Being against background checks

I support the MT amendment, which had a number of provisions you would not like. ,

being against common sense gun control,

buzz term, "common sense" doesn't actually mean anything.

and seeing more and more people committing mass murders with high-powered firearms

there are actually fewer, just more coverage. These were not high powered rifles in the technical sense of the term, but makes great propaganda.

while people like you don't want anything to change because you're oh so afraid that the black helicopters and MIB are gonna drop in from the night skies to grab your guns away,

I thought MIB had something to do with space aliens and UFOs. It is simply the liberal premise that you don't curtail the civil liberties of the many for the actions of one.

give these psychopaths every opportunity they could ever wish for to commit those bloody mass-murders of innocent people. And through the misinterpretation of the 2A, you and your fellow gun-luvrs want to continue to ensure they'll be able to because, hey, those massacred aren't your kids. They aren't your family. They aren't you. So why should you care, right?

is there a rational point there?

[BlueCaliDem]

37. The Manchin-Toomey amendment was a JOKE.

Another watered-down-cater-to-the-gun-fanatics JOKE. But even that couldn't pass into law, which gives me little hope any sensible gun laws ever will. Some Americans really do love their shot up pounds of flesh drenched in innocent blood, and they will defend that right until their dying breaths.

Why the current nominee is blocked, or why the last one nominated by Bush was blocked, I have no idea.

Try googling. That is, if you even care. It's because the NRA and GOP have lobbied {translate: bribed senators with cash} against it, trying to destroy it all in the name of gun-manufacturer's right to make profits off of the blood of innocents. GWBush didn't care. President Obama is still trying to strengthen the ATF. But Congress decides, not the president, and Congress is in the back-pocket of the Merchants of Murder -including the NRA.

I thought MIB had something to do with space aliens and UFOs.

You thought wrong.

It is simply the liberal premise that you don't curtail the civil liberties of the many for the actions of one.

Of ONE?!?!? It is the CONservative premise that you care only about yourself, and the liberal premise that you work toward the good of the many - and in this many we include the twenty slaughtered children in Newtown.

is there a rational point there?

Yep. But I'm not surprised you refuse to see it.

[gejohnston]

40. what?

Try googling. That is, if you even care. It's because the NRA and GOP have lobbied {translate: bribed senators with cash} against it, trying to destroy it all in the name of gun-manufacturer's right to make profits off of the blood of innocents. GWBush didn't care. President Obama is still trying to strengthen the ATF. But Congress decides, not the president, and Congress is in the back-pocket of the Merchants of Murder -including the NRA.

I was looking for a more neutral source.

Of ONE?!?!? It is the CONservative premise that you care only about yourself, and the liberal premise that you work toward the good of the many - and in this many we include the twenty slaughtered children in Newtown.

That is worthy of a much longer discussion, but not here. Suffice to say, I'm old enough to remember when "squares" complained about those "damn hippies only care about themselves". The difference isn't that simple. Individual liberty is a liberal concept.

Question I have is why there is no rejoicing about some of the amendments that the NRA really liked, like national reciprocity, met the same fate on the same day.

[BlueCaliDem]

44. Jesus H. Christ.

I was looking for a more neutral source.

You mean a gun-friendly source. Color me surprised.

That is worthy of a much longer discussion, but not here.

Yes, because it's too painful to remember why this debate had started in the first place, and it completely annihilates your opinion and passionate argument that guns should remain a free for all, indiscriminate of color, race, creed, or mental capacity. I understand. That would be a losing proposition for you.

Suffice to say, I'm old enough to remember when "squares" complained about those "damn hippies only care about themselves". The difference isn't that simple. Individual liberty is a liberal concept.

You're confused. Individual liberty is a LIBERTARIAN concept. It's never been a Liberal's concept. You should get your "Libs" straight.

Question I have is why there is no rejoicing about some of the amendments that the NRA really liked

Because the NRA has become a propaganda machine for billion-dollar gun manufacturers and everything they say and do and LIE about, is to benefit their moneyed masters. They've lost credibility with the majority of the American people. That's why.

The question I have is, why are sane people still members of a Rightwing lobby? The NRA has been overtaken by Libertarians/Fascists like the KochBros and other assorted anti-Americans. Why would any American want to associate themselves with people who want to see Mussolini's dreams of the perfect gov't come true in this country?

[DeadEyeDyck]

18. people need to understand that the constitution

is about principles, not a list of laws.
It is up to the states to enact laws to uphold these principles.

Principles are timeless. They are clearly elaborated in the Federalist papers.

So the only rational argument is to discern what principals are encompassed in the second amendment.

[gcomeau]

24. No, they are not timeless.

Or we wouldn't need an amendment mechanism in the first place. For cripes sake, Jefferson wanted the entire Constitution redrafted with each new generation because he recognized that.

[DeadEyeDyck]

53. so, the principal of preserving ones life is

relative to the times?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. I suppose we could just as likely repeal the 1st Amendment.

Since the RKBA predates the 2A, why even contemplate repealing it?

On another note and more usefully, I suggest we repeal global warming.

[jimmy the one]

41. Unorganized militia is a JOKE

dark angel: Actually, youre only partially correct. You forgot about the unorganized militia: The reserve militia or unorganized militia, which is presently defined by the Militia Act of 1903 to consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

I hate to have to tell you this, dark angel, but you're not even partially correct; the UNorganized militia, by the very definition of 'unorganized', fails the 2nd amendment litmus test which calls for a 'well regulated' militia.
The founding fathers could not have been referring to an unorganized militia which never meets, has no commanding officers, no pay, no mobilization points. Most people don't even realize they are part of it until they're older than 45 (retired! from the Unorg'd!).

.. Wheeee, imagine, 'An unorganized militia, being necessary for the security of a free state..... erk, nope, how about:
'An unorganized militia, being necessary for the continuing profits of the national rifle association, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be unhinged'-- ah, much better.

Face it, the unorganized militia is a JOKE. A placebo doled out the militia act of 1903.

The MULTITUDES, the PROUD, the UNORGANIZED! -- semper fooey

(Note to jmg: sorry old pal, I beat you to it, you owe me a beer!)

[GreenStormCloud]

52. You may think it is a joke, but it is still the LAW. N/T

[jimmy the one]

71. Still, UNORGANIZED

gs cloud: You may think it is a joke, but it is still the LAW

You may think it's the law, but it's still UNORGANIZED.

An unorganized militia is a mob, and a mob is no more an army,
than loose bricks & mortar, a house.

The founding fathers intended the militia as a defensive palladium machine, not loose bricks & mortar.

If the unorganized militia ever gathered, as much likely a civil war would eventually develop. Is why governors & presidents have never called the unorg'd militia up in past 65 years.
Too much stupid.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. It is still the law. N/T

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. Check out...

...Federalist Paper #46 parargraph 9.

[jimmy the one]

78. Check out 'Abusing Federalist 46'

discntnt: ...Federalist Paper #46 parargraph 9.

You under the usual rightwing misconceptions? or just citing what you read from the 2nd Amendment Mythology Bible?

Abusing Federalist Paper No. 46 There is no implication in the passage below that Madison meant an individual right to be armed outside of accountability to public authority.
.. The most frequently quoted words to make the case for a personal or individual right to be armed are from James Madison's Federalist Paper No. 46. The NRA Member Guide contains the words from this paragraph in usual distortion: ... Alluding to "the advantage of being armed," James Madison adamantly defended the individual right to arms stating: "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

{rebuttal to above nra propagunda}: There is no implication in the passage below that Madison meant a individual right to be armed outside of accountability to public authority. Madison was describing a balance of power between state government and federal government, not Sue Wimmershoff-Caplan's "armed citizen guerrillas" (Appendix D) and any and all government. The militiamen, commanded by officers, were beholden to state government.

Madison #46, in fuller context: Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation , the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe , which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms . And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny of Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappi.html

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. LOL!

"nra propagunda" That's great! I love that.

Federalist #46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

I am citing exactly the part where Madison wrote that nearly everyone who was a free man would be armed.

"There is no implication in the passage below that Madison meant a individual right to be armed outside of accountability to public authority."

We are all accountable for our actions. That is how the justice system works. Note that accountable means our actions are may require justification and/or explanation. This far different from CONTROL.

[jimmy the one]

80. Madison Henry

discntnt: I am citing exactly the part where Madison wrote that nearly everyone who was a free man would be armed.

Do I have to provide your quotes too? Cite where madison said that please, you might be paraphrasing - or something;
Here's where patrick henry said 'the great object is that every man be armed', & note the link is the same I provided previously, in ref to your federalist 46 inquiry:

"The great object," thundered Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, "is that every man be armed.. everyone who is able may have a gun." in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

Patrick Henry: .. so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappi.html

I think it patently clear what patrick henry was speaking of, when he thundered out 'that every man be armed' - in the militia.

Maybe your 2nd Amendment Mythology Bible is an outdated edition?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. In 1791...

...the US population of free white males 16 and above was a bit over 800,000. If you eliminate those under 17 and those who would be too old for service, you would be close to the number Madison gives in #46. I restate Madison's intent that all free white men young enough to serve, would be armed.

I'm not seeing the relevance of what Patrick Henry said to Madison's meaning.

Maybe the relevance app on your iphone is corrupted.

[jimmy the one]

86. everyone armed with pitchforks

dscntn: If you eliminate those under 17 and those who would be too old for service, you would be close to the number Madison gives in #46. I restate Madison's intent that all free white men young enough to serve, would be armed.

What has this to do with unorganized militia today? the post of mine you replied to?
Madison was referring to white men in a well regulated militia, not the Unorganized militia of today.

Why couldn't you have put that down to begin with rather than your vagueness, not mindreaders on here. You made it sound like madison was saying what patrick henry said.
So what's your point anyway? that madison envisioned a totally armed militia? (which proved unfeasible).
Madison didn't explain where all the 600,000* militia would obtain firearms tho, altho he didn't actually say they needed firearms; pitchforks & pikes could suffice, if not broomsticks.
* (I've previously pegged it at 600,000, or ~20% of total population was 'the people' referred to in 2ndA).

I'm not seeing the relevance of what Patrick Henry said to Madison's meaning.

.. the relevance is that it appears you were quoting patrick henry when you meant james madison, since you used very similar words to patrick henry (duh). You really didn't get the connection?

Maybe the relevance app on your iphone is corrupted.

If I'd ever had one you might have had a point.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

87. thanks

I'm sure Madison had pitchforks and brooms in mind.



BTW, I have repeatedly noticed your lack of a relevance app.

[gejohnston]

83. potowmack insitute

http://www.potowmack.org/index.html

The activity on the Potowmack Institute homepage, index.html, increased from about 100 per day in fall, 2012, to about 200 per day in spring, 2013. That is still not significantly different from zero by internet standards. If anyone thinks there is a great momentum toward "gun safety" or any other firearms policy, the jump from index.html to indexA.html is only less than two per day. The gun rights militants, the only ones who show up here, need fear no threat to their childish political fantasy.

such ad hominems or just good old fashioned name calling being typical of the site's description of those they don't like, it tells me three things:
I doubt their ability to correctly copy and past copies of the Federalist Papers or any other document
They are hardly devoted to anything resembling reasoned discourse.
It is not a neutral source to be taken seriously.

about their web design,
it sucks as much as the quality of their content.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. I am reminded of the adage...

..."You get what you pay for."

[gejohnston]

89. my favorite quote

What is so difficult to understand? What the gun rights militants want, the right to be armed outside of the knowledge and reach of law and government, can never be had under any viable concept of constitutional government. The right has to be had by demagoguery. The demagoguery proceeds apace.

Of course it begs two questions
Why?
While not exactly accurate, the constitutional government has been viable for the past 200 plus years, why hasn't it fallen apart way before now?

Best I can tell, it is some guy in a DC or northern VA basement. The name was probably chosen because its similarity with the respected Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. The Constitution...

...AMERICAS MOST IMPORTANT EXPORT

Since that seventeenth day of September 1787, a one-document constitution has been deemed an essential characteristic of nationhood. Today, of the 192 independent nations of the world, all but a very few have such a constitution or are committed to having one. Among the exceptions are the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Israel—democratic nations with sophisticated constitutional jurisprudence but no one specific document that can be called a constitution. Committed to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, the constitutions of these nations consist of numerous legislative enactments specifically designated as "basic laws" (in the case of Israel) or legal scholarship that has been classified as fundamental or organic.

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/print.php?id=424

I'm interested in reading more of Blaustein's perspectives on the Constitution and constitutions in general just not 20 volumes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Blaustein

Personally, I feel the success of the US Constitution to be an inspiration.

[kudzu22]

91. People seem to think 'unorganized' means 'not well regulated'

Well-regulated in those days meant 'in good working order'. So, for those who are still confused:

The People + Arms = Well-regulated militia


And conversely,

The People - Arms = Poorly-regulated militia