The Tale of Two Second Amendments

[SecularMotion]

If you think the gun rights-gun control debate is not a serious issue in this year's election, you are mistaken. Look no further than this year's Republican and Democrat platforms and one can see that Second Amendment politics is an issue of serious disagreement.

For Republicans, the Second Amendment is not limited to the holdings of the Supreme Court decisions District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, where 5-4 majorities only held that armed self-defense in the home, with a hand gun, is a fundamental right of law-abiding citizens. Allegedly, the right to keep and bear arms also "includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration," a right to self-defense "wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be," the ability to purchase and maintain unlimited ammo clips, and the ability to purchase and maintain assault rifles. All and all, Republicans see the Second Amendment as a means to enable "Americans to defend their homes and communities."

For Democrats, the Second Amendment is acknowledged as an "important part of the American tradition" that includes the "right to own and use firearms." However, unlike Republicans, the Democrats perceive the Second Amendment as being "subject to reasonable regulation." It is the Democratic Party's hope that there can be "an honest, open national conversation about firearms" and the "terrible consequences of gun violence."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-j-charles/the-tale-of-two-second-ame_b_1866063.html

[Loudly]

1. The plain meaning of words is the enemy of all 2A supporters.

They seek to adorn it with attributes it does not possess.

What the two major political parties are vying for is the most palatable political indulgence of this national scourge.

[Reasonable_Argument]

3. You keep saying this like you haven't been proven wrong everytime you bring it up

Perhaps you should just reread the old threads and save us all the effort.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Your obviously don't mean this.

The plain meaning of words is the enemy of all 2A supporters.

Since virtually every elected and appointed official, judge and legislator (federal, state and local) swears an oath to 'support' and defend the Constitution (of which the 2A is a part) you somehow say that the 2A is their enemy.

Maybe if you could restate what you mean, please. Maybe if the parties could remain united by the what is accepted in common about the 2A, each could learn a bit from what the other shares.

[Loudly]

12. Political indulgence of a gun fetish doesn't follow from an honest read.

Either:

The People shall have access to arms in order to defend against foreign invasion.

(Wrong or moot. We have a military for that.)

Or:

The People shall have access to arms in order to engage in armed rebellion against their government.

(Wrong or moot. Settled for all time by the American Civil War.)

The plain meaning of the words in the text cannot say anything else.

Including they cannot say "I'm afraid of robbers or rapists" or "I must stand my prideful ground."

If you want it to say that, you must amend.

[rDigital]

15. Good afternoon, shares. Enjoy your stay. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. "Settled for all time by the American Civil War."

How so???

[Loudly]

17. Didn't you Rebs agree to that at Appomattox?

Or are you claiming you missed the small print?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. The list grows:

"you Rebs" - who are you addressing
"agree to that at Appomattox" - please define "that" and how it relates to this discussion.
"missed the small print" - humor I'm guessing

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. Unable to respond?

How obvious and feeble of an argument against the most basic and fundamental concept of freedom. A contest between a society seeking to perpetuate slavery and the Democratically elected government of a republic working to end it, that's your answer. You hold this up as an example of how the founding principle of the country is no longer valid.

Your argument is a troubled, disturbed and basically vile pile of putrescence. Whatever its origin, an attitude of some nationalistic Stockholm Syndrome is entirely invalid and wholly revolting. Don't bother to respond or try to justify this line of thinking. The more I reflect on it the more I want to

[PavePusher]

19. You must buy your Strawmen(tm) wholesale.....

...no-one could afford retail for that volume and crap quality.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Shares fabricates them

[Oneka]

24. what is really said , Shares, is:

my right to own and carry arms, shall not be infringed, by my government.

That is all.

[Loudly]

29. Obviously, that is only the beginning of what anyone can say it means.

Let's start at nuclear weapons and work our way backwards from there to what it really means and for what purpose.

You will soon find your fig leaf of a constitutional justification torn off.

Revealing you holding your schmekel in its natural state, unenhanced by firearms technology.

[Trunk Monkey]

25. Just because the Confederate states failed in their attempt at Secession

in no way invalidates the principle of an armed citizenry as a defense against tyranny.

In fact (IMO) it bears the principle out.

The Civil war was (on the Confederate side) the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons and the South was doomed to failure from the beginning by the industrial might of the North.

That said you can not over look the fact that the South was able to carry the fight for four years and that a large number of the Southern command structure were US Army veterans of the Mexican American war.

Do you some how think that the United States Armed Forces of today wouldn't under go a similar split in time of a national crisis?

Do you think that in this age of instant communications and a shrinking world (meaning that our Army is much more closely bound to our communities) that the U.S. Army wouldn't have some serious moral difficulties firing on their fellow Americans ?

[Loudly]

28. All this bears out is how wrong and willful an armed populace can be.

And how self righteously defiant regardless of how wrong.

More importantly, look at the arms gap between the government and the People today compared to 1861.

Accepting the fact of such an overwhelming force imbalance, how does one go about justifying the level of lethality the People can only plausibly use against each other?

Sorry, but the going-to-war-with-the-government argument doesn't wash on so many levels that it just cannot support the existence of a constitutional "right."

Once stripped of its imprimatur as a right, we can rein it in sensibly as an indulgence gone insanely wrong.

[PavePusher]

30. Yeah, you're right.... no nation that ever went to war with its own government got anywhere...

Oh. Wait a minute....

[DWC]

37. The most basic logic dictates

1. Our standing military must be reduced to the Swedish "militia" Model;

2. History proves only slaves and subjects are disarmed so that they can easily be controlled by force; and

3. Nothing is "settled for all time" except human nature.

These facts are as true today as they were 230+ years ago when our founding fathers established our Constitution for all generations, not just theirs and not just yours.

Semper Fi,

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Good afternoon Shares...

[Atypical Liberal]

26. No, it's the enemy of anti-second amendment people

The meaning of the second amendment is quite clear: The people are intended to keep military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that the people can engage in warfare if necessary.

[Reasonable_Argument]

2. Debate... right

That open and honest debate will begin for the democrats when the first new gun law is passed and end when the last weapon is melted down into scrap along with the last man who refused to give it up.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. so then, you are not a democrat?

"That open and honest debate will begin for the democrats when the first new gun law is passed and end when the last weapon is melted down into scrap along with the last man who refused to give it up."

-- not the words of a person who supports the Democratic Party.

[Reasonable_Argument]

21. Well

I am a liberal and a principled man. I do not give my loyalty to any political party. When the democrats fall in line with my views, which is frequent, they have my support. When they don't... out come the fangs. I have suffered so much to be the person I am today and I will not sacrifice my beliefs to "fit in". The fun part is knowing there is so much more to come down the trail.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. Because we have no choice.

Make no mistake. There are many liberals out there, and here, who fully support the second amendment and the individual empowerment it provides, even though we also support collective action elsewhere.

There are legions of us who are pro-choice, anti-war-for-oil, pro-environment, pro-Occupy, Pro-99%, anti-corporate-legislative-influence, anti-wealth-legislative-influence, and pro-gay-marriage who also support the second amendment.

I think the Democratic party is wrong on its stance on the second amendment, and I think it will cost us votes.

This does not mean I do not support the Democratic Party.

[Trunk Monkey]

33. Well said. NT

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. I can't find...

...that part of the Republican platform that says that the Second Amendment is not "subject to reasonable regulation."

After all if the Democrat platform includes a statement that the Second Amendment is "subject to reasonable regulation." then for our platform to be "unlike" the Republicans' would have to say in their platform that the 2A isn't subject to reasonable regulation.


However, in spite of Mr Charles' attempt at setting a straw-man by saying that (tongue-in-cheek) there are 2 Second Amendments, I'd like to find some substance his claim that in the 18th century laws actually effected changes in behavior which prevented "breaches of the peace and public injury with arms".

[Kolesar]

7. "the Democrat platform"

Democrat is is a noun
Democratic is an adjective
Your slip is showing

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. >>>

THANKS, my grammar checker is in the shop.

[Remmah2]

39. What's the point where "reasonable restrictions" become "infringements"? nt

nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. Language has meaning

If you allow the terms in which your laws and ideals are written to be hijacked, then they mean nothing. They can be perverted and misshapened into something you won't recognize.

[rrneck]

5. good idea!

Lets start in this thread! How about it SM, ready to kick it off?

[SecularMotion]

6. Okay, just for the sake of discussion

I'll be the Democrat and you be the Republican.

[rrneck]

10. Prove you can.

Anybody can fling Google dumps.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. I'm not sure if...

...a point can be awarded for strikes below the belt.

[PavePusher]

32. Roll reversal is touted as good therapy.

I hope it works out for you two!

[PavePusher]

18. Surely, freedom from slavery and voting rights should be "subject to reasonable regulation."

Right?

[ileus]

23. No one should be in disagreement on the 2A.

[rl6214]

31. And then there's the third tale...your.

The tale that believes guns should be taken away, that there should be draconian gun regulations.

[krispos42]

35. "...this year's Republican and Democrat platforms..."

Not "Democratic"... "Democrat". As in, "DemocRAT".


very interesting.

[krispos42]

36. "...with Democrats hoping to strengthen background checks, close purchasing loopholes..."

Well, he didn't call it the "gun show" loophole, so that's something. Although he did call a type of gun "assault rifles", and I'm assuming he meant "assault weapon", so he's not even getting the arbitrary, politically-motivated term right.


I find it interesting that Mr. Charles thinks that having the right to defend yourself wherever you legally are is a sign of extremism.

[Remmah2]

38. The Huffington Post really need to hire a writer.