REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

[hazlnut]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "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." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

 

[DiamondDave]

KoS

About as bad as your Huffo Puffo Fluffo

 

[kwc57]

REMINDER: Most Wingnut Liberals and Namby Pamby Bed-wetters Misread 2nd Amendment

Regulating the Militia - National Review Online

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

The only misreading of the Second Amendment is being done by your historically ignorant pea brain.

KOS

You really think anyone will take you seriously posting from KOS? That's as bad as one of the Republicans linking to World Nut Daily.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[hazlnut]

nudge bump

 

[bigrebnc1775]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "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." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

more proof that you are one stupid son of a bitch.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

The only misreading of the Second Amendment is being done by your historically ignorant pea brain.

KOS

You really think anyone will take you seriously posting from KOS? That's as bad as one of the Republicans linking to World Nut Daily.

This^^^^^^^^
OH by the way are you going to make it too the gun show tomorrow in Concord?

 

[CaféAuLait]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "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." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

I guess the SCOTUS and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit misread it too in Columbia v. Heller.


District of Columbia Circuit decision:

The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

SCOTUS decision:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

 

[PredFan]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "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." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

One wingnut quoting another wingnut.

Do you ever have a thought of your own?

 

[Avatar4321]

You mean we have the audacity to think the second amendment means what it actually says? Yes. Yes we do.

 

[kwc57]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "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." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

One wingnut quoting another wingnut.

Do you ever have a thought of your own?

Come on now! When you are paid a penny a post, you have to do a lot of cut and paste to get enough for your next bottle of hooch.

 

[DiamondDave]

Pay Per Post Forum - Get Paid For Blogging

 

[midcan5]

A conservative judge agrees. "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." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/Cass_Sunstein_Quotes.pdf

See "A proposal for rational gun control." A Case for Gun Control
2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw
Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2004
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/feb/28/offering-single-shot-sentiment/?opinion

_

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A conservative judge agrees. "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." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/Cass_Sunstein_Quotes.pdf

See "A proposal for rational gun control." A Case for Gun Control
2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw
Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2004
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/feb/28/offering-single-shot-sentiment/?opinion

_

Yeah we're allllllll interested in what eugenicist neo-nazi cass has to say

 

[kwc57]

Pay Per Post Forum - Get Paid For Blogging

Is that a joint venture between MoveOn, Daily Kos and the DNC?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "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." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

His OPINION is proven wrong by Heller. The Court held that the second amendment is an individual right irregardless of actual membership in a Militia. Further numerous cases have noted that the "militia" includes ALL able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45.

Your link is a personal opinion proven wrong by the Courts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A conservative judge agrees. "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." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/Cass_Sunstein_Quotes.pdf

See "A proposal for rational gun control." A Case for Gun Control
2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw
Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2004
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/feb/28/offering-single-shot-sentiment/?opinion

_

An opinion from a dead Judge does not trump an actual ruling by the Supreme Court. But then you already know that don't you?

 

[OODA_Loop]

10th Amendement reservation to the States to provide for their own defense against the over reach of Federal authority.

The State well regulates our militia by guaranteeing the right of the individual to bear arms in the State Constitution.

I would answer the call of my State.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 2nd amendment protects the right of States to form maintain and arm militias.

The individual's right to guns outside the context of the militia is an unenumerated right, like the right to an abortion.