100%
Posted on 02/25/2018 8:11:54 AM PST by billorites
While executives at Delta, United, Avis, etc. are virtue signaling as loudly as they can to assure us they want nothing to do with those supposed gun nuts in the National Rifle Association and are ending discounts (such as they were) for members of that organization, a real-world observation of what went on in the Parkland tragedy, not to mention other key contemporary events, might yield a radically different conclusion.
To wit: The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has much to recommend it. Indeed, we may need it more than ever.
Let's start with Parkland. It's evident now, no matter what you think of current gun laws, that a myriad of governmental bureaucracies and police departments -- from school authorities to social workers to the FBI to the Broward County Sheriff's Office -- screwed up on a level that borders on the incomprehensible. Blinded by a mutually reinforcing cocktail of political correctness and organizational stupidity and ineptitude, they were clueless about the near constant acting out of Nikolas Cruz.
He could have flown across the country in a hot air ballon, dropping buckets of blood and guts and trailing a banner reading "I'm Gonna Shoot Up a School," and these clowns wouldn't have done anything. When Cruz actually started shooting, they behaved like the most execrable cowards, the police hiding behind cars while students and teachers were dying. That their boss, Sheriff Scott Israel, still has his job is the most incomprehensible development of all.
Would anybody in his right mind trust these people with his own security, let alone those of his children?
Is it any surprise that when President Trump asked his CPAC audience Friday which was more important to them -- the Second Amendment or tax form -- they chose the right to bear arms?
he ultimate reason that that amendment came to be was something just as crucial (perhaps more, if that's possible) as personal or family protection -- and I bet almost everyone in that CPAC crowd knew it.
It was for the citizenry to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.
But isn't that from a different era, you might ask, when people were running around with muskets? Hardly. In 1938, Hitler forbid all Germany's Jews from having guns. We know where he went from there. Stalin and Mao, the two greatest mass murderers of history, controlled the weaponry in their societies. "Power," Mao famously wrote in the Little Red Book, "comes from the barrel of a gun."
Ironically, it is some of the same people, most specifically the FBI in this case, who allowed the carnage in Parkland that are threatening our democratic republic on a political level. That organization, we have learned, essentially acted in cahoots with one of our political parties to suborn a court to enable the spying on another of our political parties and later on our president. This weekend we have confirmation that that took place because the memo finally released by the Democratic wing of the House Intelligence Committee shows no evidence that the FISA court was informed that the Steele Dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign. All that is there are the most tepid of euphemisms.
This is, of course, the stuff of incipient totalitarianism. This is why James Madison and the other Founders proposed we adapt the Second Amendment from British Common Law. They saw into a future beyond muskets and AR-15s and Glocks and even drones, lasers and whatever else people will use on each other.
Yes, it's complicated. And, yes, there are some points to be made on the side of gun control. I'm one of those who thinks the age of purchase should be raised to twenty-one, in part because we live in era when our children are maturing so slowly. Our college campuses are clear evidence of that. I'd also be happy with longer waiting periods. But the right to bear arms is sacrosanct....
Which reminds me. I'm late with renewing my NRA membership. Mr. LaPierre, check your mailbox.
A gun free zone is really a “Free Fire Zone” for gutless cowards! If they had cajones they'd walk into a PD Pct...and that would be that for them.
But MORE needs to be done. 1. Break up the FBI and 2.remove the sections from the DOJ. 3.Separate them from the DEA as well.
4. FORTIFY schools! Redesign them, e.g. hydraulic cement columns to stop vehicles; centralize four super secure class rooms in a quadrant. Make them impenetrable to fire, smoke or inflammable liquids as possible. Self contained units with facilities to communicate and sustain for extended periods; BOMB PROOF them as much as possible.
5. Make school auditoriums with a back wall that can easily be removed by a fire engine, armored vehicle or a garbage truck. Prevent a Chetznian style attach where students were herded into the auditorium and massacred.
The cost of an armed police officer in each school? Minimal compared to my estimate of the cost of # of cops, FBI & ATF at Parkland High; not to mention the cost of subsequent forensics; human misery; counseling services funerals etc.
Exactly, especially after the last administration where we got the first tastes of tyranny “Buy this companies product or be punished”..Look how fast that Obamacare BS was shoved down our throat. In a snap, at any moment this country could go full totalitarian and these leftist weasels are pushing for it every day, and they better watch the F out because if we ever do reach the point of another Civil war, their side ain’t going to be the ones with the guns. It’s going to be an extremely short Civil war.
“No you don’t. You can’t drink until you’re 21. Adulthood requires a certain level of maturity and character.
Moreso with owning a firearm.“
Hunting with a shotgun usually starts at age 10, while hunting big game with a big bore rifle starts at 12. Not to mention the requirement to fight for your country starting well before 21. Do you not believe maturity is being built through those actions? You just magically aquire maturity at some regulated age? I am sorry, but your argument falls flat, and the founding fathers would let you lay there for as long as you wish....but not let you drag everyone else down with you.
“Agree with the need for age limits. Younguns need rifle training so nothing over .22 cal s/b allowed for 18-21 yr old.”
An AR-15, the “most dreaded of all firearms”, is .22 cal.
I will agree that training is needed, and should be administered by the family while on the way to whatever random age you would care to levee on us all.
Ditto. When some pollie says you don’t “neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed” a particular firearm, the correct response is “GFY”!.
100%
“You can’t drink until you’re 21. Adulthood requires a certain level of maturity and character.”
And yet an 18 year old can join the Marine Corps and be given hand grenades, machine guns, rocket launchers, and drones armed with bombs.
Nice try, Skippy.
L
Not no, but HELL no. I could handle an age 21 requirement to buy semiauto rifles other than .22LR, but NOT “all firearms”.
Favorite meme lately...
Why do I need an AR15?
Because F U, that’s why.
Let us be grateful for the second amendment and why we need it. Facts are that as time went on our society has become increasingly more violent, for a variety of reasons, and there are way too many of them to go in to details here. But many of them are due to unchecked liberal-socialist policies in regards to family as well as the educational systems. And more often than not a gun at the proper time and in the right hands may allow a person to walk away alive instead of becoming a victim.
But this was not exactly what the founders of this Great Nation had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. The other and most important reason was that they were only too familiar with human nature and that over time power corrupts and very easily can turn some otherwise fairly honest politicians into crooks and scoundrels who will do and say just about anything in order to protect and preserve their jobs even at the expense of their constituency. In turn this opens the door to a slippery slope eventually leading to dependency and if left unchecked to a full blown dictatorship.
Many in our society, especially on the left claim that in our day and age this never could happen, even so recent events proof otherwise. There are way too many examples of people in top governmental position who get by with what ever they can with actions, which may not be outright criminal, but bordering on deceit, patronage and corruption. If either you or I would have been caught up in one of those schemes we would be facing jail time, but very seldom any politician ever has. We all know who they are, so there is no need to bring up names.
Fortunately for a change the public saw things for what they really were and much to their credit they spoke out during the last elections when the stench of corruption began to smell to high heaven. The public denied one of the presidential contenders the presidency; even so she was under the impression it was to be rightfully hers. And being crooked as she is, along with a warped left leaning mind, she still appears to be unable to conceive why she lost along with many others on the left including most snowflakes.
Her loss was our luck as this country got a temporary reprieve from sliding further down the slippery slope into the abyss of socialism. This is just one example why we never should say that this cannot happen, as next time we may not get this lucky as history shows otherwise.
Should push come to shove at least the public has the resources in form of arms to rise up and with a little luck and some help from other governmental entities corroborating the uprising, once again could bring down such a dictatorship. Needless to say for most anyone on the right who are blessed with common sense and the ability to think straight all this is only too familiar and an old hat. But for anyone on the left history means very little and conveniently forget the real reason behind the second amendment. And as an old adage states “If we don’t learn from history we are condemned to repeat it until we do”
Actually, it's gun control that was designed to keep guns out of the hands of "undesirables," the way NY's Sulivan Law was purposely "crafted" to keep guns away from Blacks and immigrants!
Mark
This is a real question:
Is there ANY age limit on any military weapons system?
Most public venues have trained, armed security. Learn from Israel. Health care for those with mental health problems. Enforce existing law.
You are right. And I would also add that there are some 18, 19 and 20yo’s who are supporting a wife and children. Some live alone. Some live in areas or work at jobs that might be located in unsavory parts of town. If they feel that they need a gun to defend themselves, then they should have the right to purchase one. Not every young person is a deranged liberal tool.
I am against imposing a waiting period, too. A background check should only take a few hours at most. When I was in college and threatened by a stalker and needed my self defense, I had it by nightfall. Although I was luckily not attacked, a 2 week waiting period could have literally meant the difference between life and death. The police had already been notified. They downplayed my threats, probably because I was so young. They gave me a pat on the head along with assurances that I was making something out of nothing and told me that they could offer no assistance without an actual crime to react to. I, a young woman living in a house alone in a sleepy college town, with a stalker who could have been watching me from anywhere, was not taken seriously.
“Is there ANY age limit on any military weapons system?”
Not to my knowledge, at least not in the USMC.
If you’re qualified on it, you can use it.
L
Including in the military.
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of GUN WEEK:
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of \American Usage and Style: The Consensus\.
A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for \Editor and Publisher\, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, \American Usage and Style: The Consensus\, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers’ Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did \not\ give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
“Dear Professor Copperud:
“I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
“The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘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 debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent.
Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.”
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
“I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
“Sincerely, J. Neil Schulman”
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I’ve inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying “militia, “ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject “the right,” verb “shall”). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms \solely\ to “a well-regulated militia”?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” \granted\ by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right “shall not be infringed”?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” null and void?;]
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” grant a right to the government to place conditions on the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase “well-regulated militia” mean: “well-equipped,” “well-organized,” “well-drilled,” “well-educated,” or “subject to regulations of a superior authority”?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means “subject to regulations of a superior authority”; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
[Schulman: As a “scientific control” on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict “the right of the people to keep and read Books”\only\ to “a well-educated electorate” -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] (1) Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard’s desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgment of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing. It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak? Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor? Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation.
Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All others rights reserved.
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.