When will there be a March for Our Rights?

"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."

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."


"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can’t get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same." Humiliation and rage: how toxic masculinity fuels mass shootings | Aeon Essays


"About 32,000 people are shot and killed every year in the United States. An additional 70,000 suffer non-fatal injuries from gun shots, three-quarters of which are due to interpersonal violence. Since 1968, more people have been killed by firearms on this civilian ‘peacetime’ battleground across the US than in all military conflicts beginning with the War of Independence in 1775. In 1997, the rate of firearm deaths among children under 15 years old was about 12 times higher in the US than the combined rate for 25 other industrialised countries. And in 2010, firearms accounted for 18,270 deaths or injuries to children and teenagers. The number of deaths due to guns has gone down from a peak in the early 1990s, but firearms still account for half the suicides and over two-thirds of all homicides. It is just a whole lot easier to kill with a bullet than by strangling, drowning, poisoning, or with fists, clubs and knives. But despite these ghastly statistics, one constantly encounters stickers, cable news hosts, and editorials insisting that guns save lives." http://aeon.co/magazine/society/do-guns-save-lives/


"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts." A gun in the home increases personal safety

Well regulated does not mean what you think. It means well trained & disciplined. The militia is the people.

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions
People aren't militia. The National Guard is a people's militia. So is the US army.

No they are not. They are armed forces of the United States as outlined in U.S. Code. Standing armies. You clearly did not read the article as this was discussed. The framers wanted a check on a tyrannical govt which had standing armies. Furthermore, the founders stated the Militia was the People. Heller confirmed this by stating the 2nd Amendment was an individual right of the People, not a collective right.
Just because Heller farted doesn't mean that that was the original intent. A people's militia is the National Guard, citizens who volunteer to form a militia... When tyrannical governments appear, it's usually the army itself that deposes them.

You clearly don’t understand US Code.
 
...In that case, let's take away your internet...
You cannot kill somebody by logging onto the Internet.

...and your paper and all your pens...
You cannot kill somebody by writing.

---------------------

Faux equivalencies.

So you're saying that constitutional rights are not equal?
Correct.

Some Constitutional Rights require more responsibility and accountability than others.

This is doubly true in matters of lethality.
 
...In that case, let's take away your internet...
You cannot kill somebody by logging onto the Internet.

...and your paper and all your pens...
You cannot kill somebody by writing.

---------------------

Faux equivalencies.

So you're saying that constitutional rights are not equal?
Correct.

Some Constitutional Rights require more responsibility and accountability than others.

This is doubly true in matters of lethality.

Which basically means that they aren't rights, they're merely privileges.
 
...In that case, let's take away your internet...
You cannot kill somebody by logging onto the Internet.

...and your paper and all your pens...
You cannot kill somebody by writing.

---------------------

Faux equivalencies.

So you're saying that constitutional rights are not equal?
Correct.

Some Constitutional Rights require more responsibility and accountability than others.

This is doubly true in matters of lethality.

Which basically means that they aren't rights, they're merely privileges.
Incorrect.

Many rights carry with them a measure of responsibility or accountability.

This is soon (finally!) to be true of firearms ownership.

The longer you(r side) resist coming to the negotiating table, the more restrictive the solution.

Your present political ascendancy ( Presidency, House, Senate, SCOTUS ) is not going to last forever.

The next time the scales tip - and they always do - your Opposition in this matter is going to remember your obstructionism.

Then, you will reflect upon this wasted time, when you could have negotiated a middle ground, and you will regret your obstinacy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top