While the news has shifted, yet again, to other things for the moment I have revisited the Second Amendment and gun violence thought. Understand that one of my past times is to comment on articles on various news sources but particularly on Huffington Post. See earlier posts as to why I like that format but here is the point... I enjoy hunting the Trolls and commenting to correct the misinformation they put out there.
A lot of that stuff is juvenile and thereby easily dealt with but others are more thoughtful and it takes deep pondering to chat with them on a realistic basis. That's why it's such a fun endeavor. Some of the time it sinks to name calling after one exchange but often enough you have to look further to see what the real question is. That's the set up for this entry.
Since long before the Sandy Hook tragedy my inclination has been to find a way to understand the path to controlling gun violence in incremental steps. That means that I get a lot of criticisms saying something like,"...but that would not have prevented Sandy Hook." Well, that is true enough but irrelevant.
It took a long time to SEE the Second Amendment in a different way simply because the arguments are old... very old at this point. Some of the misdirection is aimed at obscuring real issues. So here is the direction I have gone.
Almost every Troll sticks to the idea the 2nd Amendment says that their right to own guns is based on, "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." This is the version that was actually ratified by the states at the time. There are a few that post differing versions of that but they can be ignored. What these folks focus on is that the right may not be infringed. Generally they gloss over the, "...well regulated militia..." part of this so they shout that the right cannot be infringed and it is the right that they have. The part that says you can KEEP weapons is pretty clear as well, but you need to know what the essential right is before you can begin to bring that into focus.
It took many exchanges to bring this into focus but here it is. According to this amendment you have the right to bear arms. Put yourself in the place of the founding fathers and look closely. It does not even give you the right to OWN a gun (just to keep them). Okay, back up the bus a bit and look again. At the time the words were written the concern was that a standing army was a danger to the Republic. We have all seen in some part of the world the so-called Banana Republics facing their military taking over the government. We did not want a standing military. Got that.
 | ||
| Part of an armory at the time of the Revolutionary war. |
The right to bear arms means that, when called upon, you have the Right to fight against foreign powers. To maintain that right the amendment further implies that you must be part of that militia! That you will be part of drills on a regular basis. That you will be keeping the arms provided for that defense in the armory of the State or the Municipality or some such. I do not even want to attempt the strange twist in logic that some have made that they have the right to bear arms against their government... in other ways that is called treason.
=================================================
Here are some exchanges that have brought this change in view into focus. More on this later.
You wrote:
Look, I don't think anyone... repeat, ANYONE... is trying to TAKE AWAY your guns. There is not an infinite right to bear arms at the expense of all other rights, however. Additionally, there ARE already limits on military style weapons. And, no, every citizen is only potentially a member of a WELL REGULATED militia. The 2nd amendment does imply that your right to bear arms is strong but not infinite. It does not even imply that you have a right to OWN a gun; only to have them available in the event there is a military NEED. Other than that you are not actually reading the amendment.
================================================
You wrote:
The gun folks are not thinking in terms of what is best for the country (once again). Okay, so be it. Waste your time and money on stupid. The restrictions on guns seems a correct one given the off the chain level of gun violence
in the country. I feel safer in some places because there is not some imagined infinite right to carry military weapons around.
But if you really want to exercise your first amendment right to petition the government (first amendment) to attempt to restrict the freedoms of the rest of us to be free from the worry the unrestricted guns create please waste as much money as possible. The lawyers will love you and the rest of us will feel better that you are off the streets and occupied. You cannot hide stupid.
================================================
You wrote:
Look, I don't think anyone... repeat, ANYONE... is trying to TAKE AWAY your guns. There is not an infinite right to bear arms at the expense of all other rights, however. Additionally, there ARE already limits on military style weapons. And, no, every citizen is only potentially a member of a WELL REGULATED militia. The 2nd amendment does simply that your right to bear arms is strong but not infinite. It does not even imply that you have a right to OWN a gun only to have them available in the event there is a military NEED. Other than that you are not actually reading the amendment.
joeThibo:
Well let's clarify. There is an unconstitutional limit on military weapons, but as you can see if you actually read the second amendment there is no limit applied to military weapons supplied in the amendment. So where does the government get the right to limit the type of arms the people can bear. That's where you have a problem like a lot of other people, they think they can just legislate the rights of the people in the second amendment. That also is not in the second amendment if the founders wanted the government to legislate to regulate the right to bear arms they would have provided that provision.
Since they didn't nobody can infer that their intention was to have the government any government regulate the rights in the second amendment. Since when has the government well regulated anything. They can't regulate a balance budget they can't regulate Banks they can't regulate the mortgage industry. Heck this administration can't even regulate the State
department without getting people murdered. So please the public is better at self regulating than the government.
The constitution doesn't state the government is the regulator and since they can't regulate anything well the founders had it right to not supply the government should be the regulator of the second amendment.
You wrote:
Given your failure to connect the dots, this will likely fall on deaf ears. You cannot own a tank, rocket launcher or machine gun. It is not a question of Constitutionality that you are prohibited from owning certain weapons at present. Again, the 2nd amendment SAYS, literally, that you have the right to bear arms... it gives you no particular right (read it again) to OWN any gun. It is more efficient that you are allowed to own a gun but you have misled yourself in the understanding that leaps from a "right to bear" somehow means you have a right own. It does not say that. Get over it.
Again, no one is looking to take your gun away but you need to understand that, technically, it is just a privilege not a right.
=================================================
You wrote:
These days the militia IS the National Guard. Pretty straightforward, really.
agenda21 wrote:
No it not it is called the National Guard, they purposely did not name it the United States Militia. Go look up the debate when the Nation Guard was started.
The Framers and Founder were very adamant about having any standing army in times of peace. The plan was to disband the Army during times of peace. An Army sitting around inside your country during times of peace is a very bad risk to have around.
You wrote:
It appears you did not understand what you may have read. The founders did not want a standing army, that part is true. AND, the NG is not a standing army. It is the present day version of the militia... organized by state. Their weapons are kept in armories just as they were at the time of the founding of the country. A gun, a musket, at that time was a years worth of earnings. The state bought the weapon and stored it in the armory. You might actually do a bit more reading before giving out misinformation.
=================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment