Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One Solution to the Gun Problem: Enforce the Whole Second Amendment (Guess where he's going...)
AOL Daily Finance ^ | January 21, 2013 | Bruce Watson

Posted on 01/23/2013 1:25:02 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

The one thing that President Obama and the National Rifle Association seem to agree on is that the U.S. needs to develop a more effective firearms policy. Over the past month, both sides have offered suggestions: Obama has proposed a four-part plan to ban assault weapons, protect schools, implement background checks, and screen out mentally ill potential gun purchasers. As for the NRA, spokesman Wayne LaPierre proposed the "National Model School Shield Program," a plan to train teachers in the use of firearms and enlist volunteers to patrol school grounds.

Both proposals have severe shortcomings: Obama's assumes the passage of extensive gun-control legislation -- wishful thinking, given Congress' severe disfunction and the lobbying power of the NRA. As for the NRA, its notion of elementary schools being patrolled by armed volunteers and militarized math teachers is harrowing at best.

To develop a third, better alternative, one might consider looking back to the specific wording of the Second Amendment.

Getting Back to Basics

The trouble is, the Second Amendment is notoriously confusing. Stating: "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 amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but does so with a caveat, qualifying the right by couching it in terms of a military organization.

Today, activists on both sides of the gun divide argue about what the Founding Fathers meant by "well-regulated militias." Gun opponents claim that the Second Amendment's wording referenced a power struggle between state militias and a federal army -- the resolution of which renders much of the amendment moot. Meanwhile, gun proponents argue that "well-regulated" essentially meant "well-armed," suggesting that there should be few limits on gun ownership...

(Excerpt) Read more at dailyfinance.com ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; militias; nra; obama; secondamendment
Yeah, those "other members of the community" are also known as CRIMINALS, Bruce.
1 posted on 01/23/2013 1:25:16 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The 2nd amendment isn’t confusing at all. I don’t think there’s another law in the history of the country that’s as well documented to have meant one thing. People only pretend not to understand, consciously or not, for ulterior ends. Or maybe they’re grossly ignorant and can’t read, aren’t familiar with how constitutional language works, or haven’t bothered to consult the vast literature on the subject.

Here’s a cheat code: whenever the Constitution says “the right of the people,” it means the same thing.


2 posted on 01/23/2013 1:40:31 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Wow. I’ve never read a poorer interpretation of what the Second Amendment is in my life.

It’s almost if people want to redefine what the Second Amendment is, rather than attempt to actually amend it. To render its contents so different from intent to make it actually meaningless.


3 posted on 01/23/2013 1:45:56 AM PST by MDspinboyredux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Swiss way is the way to go.


4 posted on 01/23/2013 1:47:14 AM PST by Eye of Unk (AR2 2013 is the American Revolution part 2 of 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The liberal ideal of a militia is the "select" militia which is exactly the kind of militia our forefathers didn't envision. This is a militia that is, essentially, an armed guard in the employ of the government and it is, therefore, subject to the same corruptions that turn democratic governments into despotic oligarchies. It is nothing more than a small standing army that operates in conjunction with the large standing army. It is, in effect, the government.

The reality is, our forefathers intended for the militia to be separate from the government. They absolutely, unequivocally, inarguably intended for the militia to be a counter balance to government power in order to prevent the kind of government oppression and abuses that led to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. A select militia actually promotes oppression and abuse. A well armed loosely organized civilian militia prevents it and that's why liberals oppose the Jeffersonian Republican ideal of the militia.

Volumes of evidence exist which support this reality which forces the leftists to perform all manner of political trickery to obfuscate the issue. They lie, cheat, manipulate and coerce. they argue that the constitution guarantees them the right to slaughter unborn children in their mother's womb but does not guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They represent everything our forefathers despised and, as such, it is little wonder that they hold our forefathers in such low regard. Their attempt to disarm us belies their cowardice and the recognition that their day of reckoning is coming.

5 posted on 01/23/2013 1:51:48 AM PST by RC one (.From My Cold Dead Hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I wonder why nobody has ever thought about calling it The Tea Party Army or something to that effect.

I wonder why people who believe in the Tea Party have not voiced a desire to have state funding, donations, site areas for training and above all a plan of action, to be prepared to at the very least to defend the state capitols from enemies from within.


6 posted on 01/23/2013 2:07:36 AM PST by Eye of Unk (AR2 2013 is the American Revolution part 2 of 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; All
Bruce here has never bothered to read what the Framers said about it outside the Amednment itself, especially Madison's 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. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

Of course, the Left's meme of the week is that the 2nd Amendment's purpose was to simply control slaves, and is therefore moot and obsolete.

7 posted on 01/23/2013 2:17:46 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
The United States Citizens KNOW that they're going to have to fight TYRANTS in their own government.
You cannot protect life, without the ability to take life.

While you are WAITING for the police to respond, someone could be losing their life.
All people of a responsible age should be armed.

As EternalVigilance reminded us:

Click here to read the 12 page pamphlet.


Let us NEVER FORGET THAT !

Let's subjugate them to OUR end game, DUST!
"COMPROMISE" is a DIRTY word!
People who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.


It's time to mock the "Gun Control" Zombies!
"Gun Control" is a firm grip, steady breathing, accurate aim (developed by lots of practice), and a slow trigger pull.


The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
We need to learn from the Swiss and implement their "gun control measures" here in the United States right now, today!
These laws are the ones we should shove into the "2nd Amendment Haters" faces.

The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
Let's adopt THEIR LAWS !

Remember: Read Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, IT'S ABOUT TYRANNY .
8 posted on 01/23/2013 2:24:00 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Supreme Court ruled it was an individual right. It is a moot point for what reason the federal government is forbidden from infringing upon the right. It just is. I lacks the delegated authority to regulate or infringe upon the right. It is retained by the People from federal government.

For Obama or the Congress to act otherwise makes us all subjects without the consent of the governed.


9 posted on 01/23/2013 2:30:39 AM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Its a lonely life being the only person that adheres to the 2A, I’m a bit long in the tooth, not as fast as I used to be, I’ll most like not have any strategic plan or objective on how a single person can be a 2A soldier without formal training or military leadership.

just have to wing it i guess, drop off the web, keep a low profile, spot any “new friends” and lead them elsewhere as they will most likely be ones trying to break apart any and all organized militias. Which makes it problematic when you think you should join a militia.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t.


10 posted on 01/23/2013 2:33:04 AM PST by Eye of Unk (AR2 2013 is the American Revolution part 2 of 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
"The Swiss way is the way to go."

Agree 100%

Add banking and currency stability to that and you're got a prosperous nation.
11 posted on 01/23/2013 2:50:24 AM PST by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
The coming slaughter over our "freedom/liberty" (the two words are NOT the same) will probably be long and prophetic.
I ran across a good description of the two words, here.
Don't join a militia.
If you haven't any military experience by now, the best you can do is find a gun club and go to their range and get an education with lots of practice.
Depending on your age, learn how to survive a long hike and become good at packing light.
Learn how to camp, and learn how to become a sniper(there are books to read).
12 posted on 01/23/2013 3:21:40 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

You got some bad information. “Liberty” derives from the Latin “liber,” which means “free.” “Dom” does not mean control or domination. It means status or condition. So “freedom” means the condition or state of being free, which is synonymous with “liberty.”


13 posted on 01/23/2013 4:02:12 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

PFL


14 posted on 01/23/2013 4:08:09 AM PST by Dusty Road
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

Well, Watson, “keep and bear arms” does NOT mean “store them with the Tyrants”!!!


15 posted on 01/23/2013 5:31:36 AM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I have The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology [Hardcover] 1988 edition and it agrees with you. Also I found on Wiktionary. You might be interested in the subtle differences in
There IS a difference between the two words, and as someone commented:Gabi Strenger said:
16 posted on 01/23/2013 5:35:15 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The trouble is, the Second Amendment is notoriously confusing. Stating: "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 amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but does so with a caveat, qualifying the right by couching it in terms of a military organization.

The second sentence is not true. The phrase a well regulated militia does not qualify/restrict anything. In the parlance of the day it is what is known as a present participle and that does not restrict the meaning of the latter phrase the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

17 posted on 01/23/2013 5:38:43 AM PST by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
the amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but does so with a caveat, qualifying the right by couching it in terms of a military organization.

Idiotic. The first part of the Amendment (the militia bit) is stating *why* the Amendment is important. It doesn't tell anyone to do anything, it's just stating a fact. It's the second part that actually places a requirement, and it acknowledged "the right of the people," not "the right of the militia" or "the right of the states." The authors of the Bill of Rights clearly knew the difference between "people" and "states" -- they go out of their way to explicitly address both in the Tenth Amendment.

18 posted on 01/23/2013 5:45:18 AM PST by Sloth (Rather than a lesser Evil, I voted for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Bruce go back to feeling bad about having a gay name and shut up.


19 posted on 01/23/2013 5:46:48 AM PST by bmwcyle (People who do not study history are destine to believe really ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
This is for Mr. Watson's education...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

Mr. Watson, please listen carefully. The above sentence is in plain English. It simply means, a well equipped and trained people are necessary to keep your freedom. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bruce, your next class will be a week from today at 0840 hrs. Don't be tardy.

5.56mm

20 posted on 01/23/2013 5:48:43 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It is a “Bill of Rights” for PEOPLE — not militias, not governments. People.

It really is that simple.

ESAD Libtards!


21 posted on 01/23/2013 5:51:31 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12

See my post #21.


22 posted on 01/23/2013 5:54:06 AM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
One more reference for LIBERTY:
23 posted on 01/23/2013 5:56:24 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Wow.

After reading the article, all I can say is, um, Bruce is kind of a dope.

24 posted on 01/23/2013 5:58:30 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

Heck, IMHO, we ought to start drilling kids in elementary school.


25 posted on 01/23/2013 6:29:24 AM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Here’s a cheat code: whenever the Constitution says “the right of the people,” it means the same thing.


Exactly.

Funny. The author obviously considers himself to be an intellectual, possessed with great wisdom that must be shared with us who are less fortunate.

But never read or at least does not understand the writings of our founders.

George Mason, co-writer of the 2Nd Amendment, for one.

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm


26 posted on 01/23/2013 6:30:36 AM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Moonbat Logic 101:

Not enforcing unconstitutional laws on gun restrictions put in place by executive order is bad.

Enforcing constitutional laws regarding illegal immigration put in order by the constitution, congress, and upheld in the supreme court is also bad.

Their hypocricy knows no bounds.


27 posted on 01/23/2013 7:55:38 AM PST by al_c (http://www.blowoutcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The trouble is, the Second Amendment is notoriously confusing.

No. It isn't. It only gets confusing for anti-gun hacks trying to weasel their way around what it says.

28 posted on 01/23/2013 8:00:17 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

The Tea Party is of the people and doesn’t need outside funding, just like the PTA. the Rotary, the Masons, the Lions, etc. don’t need it. Surely someone inside the Tea Party has land to train on, field manuals from Army surplus stores, etc.


29 posted on 01/23/2013 12:56:21 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson