Should the 2nd Amendment be Repeal?

[DeMartMan]

Run time: 03:38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgXV0xETxeE   Posted on YouTube: August 30, 2010 By YouTube Member: DeMartMan Views on YouTube: 2   Posted on DU: August 30, 2010 By DU Member: DeMartMan Views on DU: 4035

 
You will find this video a great tool in opening a dialogue with the right, they argue against repealing a Constitutional Amendment (2nd), they will argue against rewriting it to limit the rights it guarantees. They will do this not realizing that they are playing right into you hands as you turn their words around on them, pointing out that the same things can be said about the first and fourteenth Amendments. You can also point out that the 14th actually strengthened the 2nd. In the video the comment is made that just because someone has a right to carry a gun doesn't mean that he should or that it is the right thing to do. You know that the right will argue against that, not recognizing it as the same argument that they are using with the Mosque. With all the right-wing spin that has gone on about these issues you can accept some of their heads to explode.

In the era of politicians talking about repealing the 14th Amendment and limiting the 1st Amendment we need to ask the logical follow-up question of, Should the 2nd Amendment be Repeal? Many gun enthusiasts don't realize that the 14th Amendment actually strengthened the 2nd Amendment. In this video a man has fought to be able to carry his gun on a playground. The question comes to mind, "what is he afraid of?" Many have said that even if he has a right to carry a gun it isn't the right thing to do. Please take our poll at http://christianityandtheconfusion.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2010/8/30/4617277.html
If the boards that you might post this video on allow for a simple poll post one like the one at our site, try making one of your own to post along with the video. The poll isn't designed to gather information, rather to increase discussion. I hope you will find this video useful in making the right think. If it is, then it will have been worth all my work.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ashling]

2. I'm not trying to be picky, but your arguement loses some efffectiveness

through grammatical errors such as "repeal" instead of "repealed", "you" instead of "yours" etc.:shrug:

[dkf]

3. Agree that people arguing for the mosque must celebrate the right to bear arms.

Anything less is rank hypocrisy.

[DeMartMan]

4. And the reverse

You can't argue to keep the 2nd amendment as it is while trashing the 1st and 14th Amendments. If someone does that they are pure hypocrites.

[dkf]

5. Actually I would twist that a little.

If you expect Americans to agree that owning a gun must be held as an American value that everyone must aspire to then you must celebrate the building of a Mosque.

It is the difference between believing something is right because it is a right and acknowledging that while things may be a right we do not all have to claim it the right thing to do.

[DeMartMan]

6. Your point is good

I would add just one thing here and that is that it's no more aspiring for everyone to own a gun than it is for everyone to build a Mosque. It is that the right will argue to the dying breath that they have a right to own a gun, while trying to deny the rights of others. So this video simply puts them on the level of seeing that their arguments don't work when they are applied back on them. Still a good post

[dkf]

7. That only works for righties that think it is constitutional to deny a permit solely on

The type of religion.

If they believe they can't constitutionally oppose it but they can still protest it, then they are ahead of those who would ban guns in certain areas.

[DeMartMan]

8. You said a very important word

"Think" I don't imagine that we will post a brilliant thread or video and have them falling on their knees, but we can plant the seeds that in time will make them think. I have seen it happen again and again, but only to those who are willing to talk about the issues. You have seen how the Teabaggers don't want to talk to any Liberals much at those rallies; they don't want to chance seeing the light.

[SteveM]

49. No problem. I fully support 2A, 14A, and the whole BOR. nt

[HankyDubs]

16. Actually, that is completely wrong...

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms for "an organized militia," not a bunch of bubbas with assault rifles. Instead of repealing the 2nd amendment, we should de-fund the Military Industrial Complex and return to a national defense based on organized local militias.

[X_Digger]

18. That is why the right is protected.

It in no way limits the right to a particular purpose.

If I said, "I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the store", would you assume that stores only sell soda?

For an analogous statement from that time, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". You wouldn't assume that the right is only limited to topics regarding 'the security of freedom in a state', correct?

[HankyDubs]

21. All topics...

including porn...are essenial to the security of freedom in a free state. Don't you understand that?

Your "right" to own thirty assault rifles is not necessary as part of a "well regulated Militia." It doesn't preotect any of your freedoms and it certainly doesn't protect mine. It's not "well-regulated" at all if people want to avoid background checks, waiting periods etc.

[X_Digger]

28. Did you not get my post, or did you choose to ignore it?

The right to keep an bear arms is not predicated on the second amendment, nor is it's purpose limited to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

From US v Cruikshank (1876)-

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection...
...
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."

Obviously, the line about Congress isn't true anymore in light of the 14th amendment and the doctrine of 'select incorporation', but the core stands.

You trying to connect the right to a 'militia' is specious. That's why the right was protected. It in no way limits it to that purpose.

[HankyDubs]

60. Talk about specious

I can't "choose to ignore" arguments you didn't make to me. Your post was about a free press being guaranteed in the Rhode Island constitution. It was not about making a case that gun ownership is a natural right, which appears to be what you are arguing here. If you wish to continue this discussion, it would behoove you to be honest about what your argument was. Your first argument was rebutted, and now you wish to make another. That's fine, but be honest about that instead of throwing accusations around.

"The right to keep an bear arms is not predicated on the second amendment..."

Then why are you using the "keep and bear arms" language of the 2nd amendment? If it isn't predicated on the 2nd amendment, then what exactly is it predicated on?

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."

Where have you found this natural right to "bear arms for lawful purpose?" It's not in Locke's 2nd treatise. Most countries with constitutions do not recognize it as an absolute right. Which orifice are you extracting it from?

The court case you cite is also irrellevant, since:

A) the right to assemble for lawful purpose is not absolute (just ask a peace protester)
B) the "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" is not being infringed by gun control laws that require waiting periods or background checks.
C) the "right" to bear arms is also not absolute: Or would you assert that citizens have a natural right to own a howitzer?

Also note that the Dredd Scott decision declared that a black man has no rights which a white man is bound to respect...sometimes individual decisions or portions thereof are simply wrong.

(edited to correct spelling of "howitzer.")

[X_Digger]

62. The Rhode Island quote was not a separate argument, but a parallel construction.

That construction, "{reason}, {statement}" was not uncommon at the time of the constitution's passage, though it has fallen out of favor today. Just as Rhode Island's protection of a free press is not limited to the purpose cited for protecting it, the right protected by the second amendment is not limited to the purpose cited for protecting it, either.

Where have you found this natural right to "bear arms for lawful purpose?" It's not in Locke's 2nd treatise. Most countries with constitutions do not recognize it as an absolute right. Which orifice are you extracting it from?

If you didn't see it, you weren't reading your Locke carefully. It flows as a logical consequence from statements such as this:

" And thus it is that every man in the state of Nature has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury (which no reparation can compensate) by the example of the punishment that attends it from everybody, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal who, having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security."

-- John Locke, An Essay Concerning the true original, extent, and end of Civil Government (1690)

Also notice I didn't assert an 'absolute right'. That's a straw man of your own making.

[HankyDubs]

63. got me on locke

But the weapons in Locke's day were swords and blunderbusses. The difference between these and a modern semi-automatic rifle are as the difference between a handgun and a howitzer. With sword and black powder weapons it would be quite difficult to walk into a public place and kill 10 unarmed people within the space of a minute. It would be nigh impossible to commit a crime such as this one:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/man-kills-5-in-arizona-and-abducts-children-before-committing-suicide-in-rancho-cucamonga.html

When I questioned whether gun ownership was an absolute right, it was not a strawman, it was my belief this was your position.

If the right isn't absolute, then it may be sensibly abridged. Your right to own a gun shoudn't be allowed to infringe on other people's right to life, liberty and happiness. For example, a state or city should have the power to make laws demanding background checks and waiting periods for the purchase of firearms. They should be able to assert that firearms can only by legally purchased at a licenced dealer which follows those laws and is accountable when they aren't followed (not a traveling gun show). They could also assert that since modern handguns can do so much damage, the owner must be licenced. Lastly where it concerns weapons of war, such as an ak-47, they should be able to assert that these weapons be restricted to those persons who are members of a local militia (as the 2nd amendment does).

[X_Digger]

65. Sadly, many people can be killed quickly with swords / knives.

I'm thinking of the recent spate of killings of school children with knives in China - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1988758,00.html

Before that, there was Akihabara in 2008- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

------

When I questioned whether gun ownership was an absolute right, it was not a strawman, it was my belief this was your position.

No, no rights are absolute. Judicial review and the attendant level of scrutiny are applied to determine what is proper and what is not. While the recent McDonald decision didn't explicitly state a standard of review, Heller took 'rational basis' off the table, and McDonald's 'fundamental' language points us toward strict scrutiny.

Let me break down your next section into individual pieces:

If the right isn't absolute, then it may be sensibly abridged. Your right to own a gun shoudn't be allowed to infringe on other people's right to life, liberty and happiness. For example, a state or city should have the power to make laws demanding background checks and waiting periods for the purchase of firearms.

One small quibble, there is no right to happiness, merely the pursuit of. I won't be pedantic and note that that statement is from the Declaration of Independence, and as such doesn't have force of law. It's a well established social expectation, and as such it could best be described as an 'unenumerated' right.

Background checks? Valid constitutionally. The dicta in Heller explicitly endorsed them as presumptively constitutional.

Waiting periods? Never tested. My guess is that such restrictions will be unconstitutional. Could you see the same restriction applying to voting? To political speech? The comparison is valid (legally) because these other rights have been ruled 'fundamental' as well.

They should be able to assert that firearms can only by legally purchased at a licenced dealer which follows those laws and is accountable when they aren't followed (not a traveling gun show).

States can do this, but the federal government does not have the power to regulate the sale of property between two in-state residents. That would be intra-state commerce, rather than interstate commerce. I can't tell if you don't know that a dealer with an FFL must do a background check wherever and whenever he sells a firearm. (There are always some folks who incorrectly think that federal firearms laws don't apply at gun shows, I don't know if you fall into that category.)

They could also assert that since modern handguns can do so much damage, the owner must be licenced.

Abridgments of rights have never been balanced against the relative damage of exercising them. This was most recently discussed in McDonald:

The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that the Court’s rule “in some unknown number of cases . . . will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”); Mapp, 367 U. S., at 659.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Lastly where it concerns weapons of war, such as an ak-47, they should be able to assert that these weapons be restricted to those persons who are members of a local militia (as the 2nd amendment does).

Two things-

What do you mean when you say 'ak-47'? Do you mean the actual rifle capable of full-auto fire? If so, then they're already heavily restricted via the 1934 National Firearms Act, and the 1986 McClure-Volkmer act that closed the registry to new civilian entry.

If by 'ak-47', you mean any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine, then you're out of luck. No army uses semi-automatic weapons, so they are not 'weapons of war', and Heller already precluded such bans. They presume that other such bans on weapons 'in common use, for lawful purposes' would also be swept away. AR-15's and rifles derived from the same technology are used in hunting, for competition, and self-defense in the home. They're also one of the best-selling rifles on the market.

I like how you stuck your unsupported assertion there on the end, that the second amendment only protects use my a militia. I almost didn't catch it the first time around. Nice try, but no.

[HankyDubs]

68. Show me a knife that can kill from 500 yards

"I'm thinking of the recent spate of killings of school children with knives in China"

This doesn't begin to compare with the "recent spate" of gun violence in the US, which costs thousands of lives each year. It seems like every day, some wacko whose "rights" you are defending here violates the rights of his coworkers, family, and random strangers by taking their lives.

"One small quibble, there is no right to happiness, merely the pursuit of."

One small quibble, both happiness and the pursuit thereof are abridged when the party in question is dead. I love how you would place the right to own firearms above the right to pursue happiness. I think that shows just how warped the NRA attitude is.

"Waiting periods? Never tested. My guess is that such restrictions will be unconstitutional. Could you see the same restriction applying to voting? To political speech?"

Voting and speaking are not like owning firearms. The comparison is not actually valid to people with an ounce of common sense. Firepower isn't political speech (unless you're Lee H. Oswald). My voting right doesn't kill you, nor does my protected speech. You don't vote or speak with bullets. Your gun only has one actual purpose...to put holes in living things. How can you seriously argue that you are being materially harmed when you are asked to wait a week before taking posession of the weapon? Or limit the number of guns you purchase in a month? How many guns do you need to have before you feel safe?

I can't tell if you don't know that a dealer with an FFL must do a background check wherever and whenever he sells a firearm

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/gun_show.shtml

I am referring to the gun show loophole, which allows "occasional sellers" (undefined) to make sales without background checks. I am also picking on gun shows because it is well known that illegal gun sales take place at these shows on a regular basis. The federal government needs to step in here, because guns can and are purchased at gun shows by out-of-state residents and then immediatley transported across state lines. This negates the states' ability to legislate effectively and makes it an interstate affair. Sorry!

"AR-15's and rifles derived from the same technology are used in hunting, for competition, and self-defense in the home. They're also one of the best-selling rifles on the market."

Look, I'm not a gun nerd; if you want to play around with the definition of semi-automatic, that's fine. I'm sure you know a great deal more about technical definitions of these things, but I'm really not all that impressed by that knowledge. My definition is a rifle that fires a round each time the trigger is pulled, can be fitted with a large magazine, and can be modified to be fully automatic. You don't need an ar-15 to hunt deer. A bolt-action rifle is about as much technology as you could possibly need. If you need more capability, then you aren't really a sportsman. I'm rooting for the deer anyway. Competition? Your desire to play with guns as if they were toys doesn't trump the rights of your fellow citizens to live in safe neighborhoods. I know that having a gun does not in fact offer "protection" to anyone in my home. It only puts them at risk. Your 30-gun collection is more likely to be stolen and used against me than it is to protect your home. Just recently in my area a man (who owned a gun) opened his door and two criminals busted in, punched him in the face and ransacked his home. What's your remedy here...should he answer the door with an ar-15 rifle on his shoulder each time?

"I like how you stuck your unsupported assertion there on the end, that the second amendment only protects use my a militia. I almost didn't catch it the first time around. Nice try, but no."

My position is supported by language of the 2nd amendment, which certainly can be read by a judge to restrict gun ownership to "a well-regulated militia." As for the 5-4 McDonald decision, you have a right wing court right now, which renders awful decisions on all fronts (or maybe you think corporations are people). When the pendulum swings back, you will have lost people like me who were ready to make compromises on several points, because you weren't ready to make sane, sensible compromises yourself for the good of your fellow citizens, preferring instead to take extremist positions. When that day comes, you will have only your unreasonable ("firearms = free speech") attitude to blame.

[X_Digger]

69. I see you didn't address the previous cases re 'public safety' v rights.

Show me a knife that can kill from 500 yards

How many people are shot from 500 yards? According to the latest figures from the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html), all rifles account for 2.6% of all intentional homicides.

This doesn't begin to compare with the "recent spate" of gun violence in the US, which costs thousands of lives each year. It seems like every day, some wacko whose "rights" you are defending here violates the rights of his coworkers, family, and random strangers by taking their lives.

I mentioned the CN killings in direct response to your statement that, "With sword and black powder weapons it would be quite difficult to walk into a public place and kill 10 unarmed people within the space of a minute."-- which shows that your statement is not actually correct. (Okay, 90 seconds versus a minute.)

I love how you would place the right to own firearms above the right to pursue happiness.

That's a false dichotomy. Who says you can't have both?

Voting and speaking are not like owning firearms. The comparison is not actually valid to people with an ounce of common sense. Firepower isn't political speech (unless you're Lee H. Oswald). My voting right doesn't kill you, nor does my protected speech. You don't vote or speak with bullets. Your gun only has one actual purpose...to put holes in living things. How can you seriously argue that you are being materially harmed when you are asked to wait a week before taking posession of the weapon? Or limit the number of guns you purchase in a month? How many guns do you need to have before you feel safe?

How many books must you have to feel educated? How many times must you vote? You've made your allotted posts this month, you have to wait til tomorrow to make any more. Sorry, you have to wait to send a letter to your congressperson, you already sent one this week.

Rights are rights. There is no Department of Need to determine whether or not a person gets to exercise a particular right. All rights are inherent and cannot be removed save through due process.

In answer to your question, re "How can you seriously argue that you are being materially harmed when you are asked to wait a week before taking posession of the weapon?" -- my younger sister went through a nasty divorce a couple of years ago. When she told her then-soon-to-be-ex that she was leaving him, he flipped out. He dislocated her collarbone, bruised her liver, and cracked one of her teeth. She filed a restraining order while he was cooling his heels on a domestic assault charge. Within three days, he was out on bail. He repeatedly violated the terms of the restraining order, threatening her and their then five-year-old son with murder. He always took off within minutes of my sister calling the local constable. Thing is, she lives over a thousand miles from me in North Carolina, and about four hundred from our parents. You would ask that she wait a week to be able to protect herself and my nephew? Living in BFE, NC, constables took anywhere from twenty minutes to an hour to show up.

What societal good does a waiting period serve? Now balance that against the danger to people like my sister. You do the math and tell me waiting periods are more important.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but the Brady Bill (1994) originally included a waiting period, to be removed when the electronic instant background check was implemented (1998). According to DOJ figures, there was no net affect on crime due to waiting periods, for two reasons- criminals don't typically go through FFLs to acquire firearms, and over half of all people who purchase firearms already have one in the home.

I am referring to the gun show loophole, which allows "occasional sellers" (undefined) to make sales without background checks. I am also picking on gun shows because it is well known that illegal gun sales take place at these shows on a regular basis. The federal government needs to step in here, because guns can and are purchased at gun shows by out-of-state residents and then immediatley transported across state lines. This negates the states' ability to legislate effectively and makes it an interstate affair. Sorry!

How many guns used by criminals come from gun shows? 0.6% - http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

You might wish the federal government could step in, but they do not have the power to regulate intrastate sales. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment will give it to them. Sorry!

Look, I'm not a gun nerd; if you want to play around with the definition of semi-automatic, that's fine. I'm sure you know a great deal more about technical definitions of these things, but I'm really not all that impressed by that knowledge. My definition is a rifle that fires a round each time the trigger is pulled, can be fitted with a large magazine, and can be modified to be fully automatic.

(emphasis mine)

That's a myth. Guns produced after 1983 have to be specifically made so as not to be able to be easily converted. The BATFE treats any gun that can be easily converted as though it already had been, which makes it fall under the tight restrictions of the 1934 NFA.

You don't need an ar-15 to hunt deer. A bolt-action rifle is about as much technology as you could possibly need. If you need more capability, then you aren't really a sportsman. I'm rooting for the deer anyway.

Like 80% of gun owners, I don't hunt. I don't give a shit what guns people use to hunt. I only mentioned it as one of the 'in common use, for lawful purposes' criteria mentioned in Heller. Funny, though. If you think the second amendment is only about militias, why 'protect' hunting? Of course, if I were in a militia (and according to US Code, I am, as part of the 'unorganized militia'), an AR-15 would be closer to an appropriate weapon to bear than a hoary old bolt-action.

Competition? Your desire to play with guns as if they were toys doesn't trump the rights of your fellow citizens to live in safe neighborhoods.

Again, mentioned as merely another 'in common use, for lawful purposes'. You're not going to make it over that hurdle, not with them being such popular rifles.

Want to know what the 1994-2004 "ban" did for AR-15's?



The first uptick in 1988 corresponds to California's 'Roberti-Roos' "ban". By the end of the "ban", over 8.5 MILLION AR-15's had been sold during the ban. Sales have continued apace since then. That train has left the station.

I know that having a gun does not in fact offer "protection" to anyone in my home. It only puts them at risk.

Really? The number of defensive gun uses based on multiple surveys has been estimated at between 800,000 and 2.5M per year. More than the number of crimes committed with guns. Gallup, Time/CNN, LA Times, etc. (Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.)

Your 30-gun collection is more likely to be stolen and used against me than it is to protect your home. Just recently in my area a man (who owned a gun) opened his door and two criminals busted in, punched him in the face and ransacked his home. What's your remedy here...should he answer the door with an ar-15 rifle on his shoulder each time?

Who said that having a gun offers perfect protection? *looks around* Nobody around here.

Not having one definitely precludes using one in self-defense, however.

My position is supported by language of the 2nd amendment, which certainly can be read by a judge to restrict gun ownership to "a well-regulated militia." As for the 5-4 McDonald decision, you have a right wing court right now, which renders awful decisions on all fronts (or maybe you think corporations are people). When the pendulum swings back, you will have lost people like me who were ready to make compromises on several points, because you weren't ready to make sane, sensible compromises yourself for the good of your fellow citizens, preferring instead to take extremist positions. When that day comes, you will have only your unreasonable ("firearms = free speech") attitude to blame.

And we come full circle. "I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." Do stores only sell soda?

You still haven't explained your problem with my interpretation, nor offered support for your interpretation.

Let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Restrictive clauses against whom? The government.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

Let's look at the second amendment itself-

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.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Today, we'd normally swap the clauses or add a 'because', or 'since'. I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

A modern restatement of the second amendment might read like-

"Since a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that the right to arms is only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is why protecting the right to be armed is protected.

Even left-leaning legal scholars like Lawrence Tribe agree:

{The Second Amendment's} central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.

(emphasis added)
Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 (3d ed. 2000)

Tribe was almost 100% right, McDonald used substantive due process (rather than privileges or immunities) to incorporate the right against infringement by states and localities.

eta: forgot to add- you're in a distinct minority with your 'collective' interpretation-

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-Supreme-Court-Gun-Rights.aspx


And that percentage has only gone up since then-

Most people in the United States interpret their Constitution’s Second Amendment in the same fashion, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 81 per cent of respondents believe the Second Amendment means that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35735/americans_agree_on_second_amendmentaas_meaning

[HankyDubs]

70. how many knives can fire 500 rounds per minute?

Makes me think of the Paul Hogan line. That ain't a knife...

How many people are shot from 500 yards? According to the latest figures from the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_infor... ), all rifles account for 2.6% of all intentional homicides

It's a non-point. Knives can't kill from 50 yards either. 20 yards? 10?

That's a false dichotomy. Who says you can't have both?

The guy who was just shot dead, that's who. His happiness is kaput, but at least we saved your gun rights! But it's not a dichotomy, it's a matter of priorities. You prioritize your right to own a shiny gun above other people's rights to live in safe communities. That's immoral.

How many books must you have to feel educated? How many times must you vote? You've made your allotted posts this month, you have to wait til tomorrow to make any more. Sorry, you have to wait to send a letter to your congressperson, you already sent one this week.

You didn't get it. My books don't kill you. My vote doesn't put a hole in your cranium. My posts don't accidentally go off and kill your child. Am I getting through?

"Guns produced after 1983 have to be specifically made so as not to be able to be easily converted."

Easily? LOL. What I said is that it is POSSIBLE to convert them. Your convenient definition of the subjective adverb "easily" doesn't interest me. You sure as hell can't "easily" make a bolt-action rifle (or a revolutionary era musket) into a fully automatic weapon. Hey we used the same subjective adverb, but look at the difference!

"By the end of the "ban", over 8.5 MILLION AR-15's had been sold during the ban."

It appears you are being deliberately deceptive here. After just a few moments online it is apparent that these were perfectly legal sales, meaning that until the Kasler decision (which the plaintiffs lost) there was in fact no "ban" in any meaningful sense of that word. Given the fact that you are trying to bury me in statistics/decisions/factoids, I have to ask: are you getting all of this from some NRA website and then pasting it here? You must be doing that...or you must have known that this was a thoroughly dishonest argument for you to make.

All rights are inherent and cannot be removed save through due process.

Due process...like passing a law with background checks and waiting periods? Yup, sounds like due process!

The DOJ statistics you cite are also misleading...as I pointed out GUN SHOWS ARE NOTORIOUS FOR ILLEGAL SALES. So that .06% rises to somewhere between .06% and 39%. Are you being deliberately misleading? At this point I have to take just about any number you throw at me with a grain of salt.

If you think the second amendment is only about militias, why 'protect' hunting?

Overpopulation, tradition. I don't really want to antagonize hunters, don't see a need to. Hunters don't come in to my city and shoot teenagers. Well, rarely. They don't usually sell handguns at gun shows to angry college students or pimply kids wearing black trenchcoats. These hunters resemble the actual colonial militias in some ways...their guns are tools and not just offensive weapons. This is why I protect them.

He repeatedly violated the terms of the restraining order, threatening her and their then five-year-old son with murder. He always took off within minutes of my sister calling the local constable.

The story with your sister is touching. I'm certainly happy that her douchebag ex wasn't allowed to purchase a GUN that very day and use it to shoot her down dead, as did this man: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/29/arizona.custody.shooting/ These things cut both ways.

Given previous distortions, I can't be sure about how accurate your account is--but assuming that law enforcement is no help, she could temporarily move to a hotel, stay with a friend...there are other options besides executing him the next time he comes around...and that's assuming she is able to use the gun properly and he doesn't just take it and use it on her.

The number of defensive gun uses based on multiple surveys has been estimated at between 800,000 and 2.5M per year.

How many estimates are there on the number of times that brandishing a firearm was totally unnecessary? Great estimate, though. 2.5m - 800k = 1.7 million. I got a chuckle out of that one, so I checked it. Is this also a factoid you grabbed from an NRA website? I ask, because it is brutally flawed: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

"Who said that having a gun offers perfect protection?"

It doesn't offer ANY protection. A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gunsinthehome

Here are some statistics you didn't mention (for some reason).

Firearm thefts PER YEAR 341,000

Murders committed with a firearm 13,673

Murders committed with a firearm as a percentage of total murders 68%

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html

The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security

Here we go again, indeed. Armed with what? Cutlasses...Muskets...or howitzers and RPG's? 'Cause your ar-15 doesn't actually contribute to state security, nor are you part of any "functioning" militia. More likely your disorganized (not unorganized) detracts from said security.

forgot to add- you're in a distinct minority with your 'collective' interpretation-

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Even if it really reflected attitudes about gun control, it would be irrelevant. Nice graph though. Also courtesy of the NRA?

You aren't going to convert me. I'm not going to convert you. It's been a fun chat but I should really be working rather than running down all your dubious data.

[X_Digger]

71. Rights aren't interpreted based on relative risk.

It's a non-point. Knives can't kill from 50 yards either. 20 yards? 10?

The right to a speedy trial, in some number of cases, puts murderers on the street because a DA couldn't get the case going fast enough. The exclusionary rule throws out perfectly valid evidence, allowing the guilty to go free.

Yet in these cases, the argument that the right causes danger has never been held valid as a justification for abridging it. You trying to do so with the right protected by the second amendment is no more valid than it is for the fifth or fourth.

You didn't get it. My books don't kill you. My vote doesn't put a hole in your cranium. My posts don't accidentally go off and kill your child. Am I getting through?

Yes, I get you, you're being disingenuous. See previous point. Your point is not legally valid, so you try to gin up moral panic.

Easily? LOL. What I said is that it is POSSIBLE to convert them. Your convenient definition of the subjective adverb "easily" doesn't interest me. You sure as hell can't "easily" make a bolt-action rifle (or a revolutionary era musket) into a fully automatic weapon. Hey we used the same subjective adverb, but look at the difference!

Anyone who can convert a modern firearm to fire fully auto can create one from scratch. Matter of fact, it is easier to do so. Creating a free floating bolt sub-machinegun was done for less than $5 per gun in Britain during WWII (Sten/Bren). Going to ban mills and metal lathes next?

It appears you are being deliberately deceptive here. After just a few moments online it is apparent that these were perfectly legal sales, meaning that until the Kasler decision (which the plaintiffs lost) there was in fact no "ban" in any meaningful sense of that word. Given the fact that you are trying to bury me in statistics/decisions/factoids, I have to ask: are you getting all of this from some NRA website and then pasting it here? You must be doing that...or you must have known that this was a thoroughly dishonest argument for you to make.

No, I never asserted that these weren't perfectly legal sales. Just that the 'ban' actually made these more popular than before.

Even now, with CA's "ban" still in place, these rifles are still California legal:



I'm quite familiar with these issues and I've bookmarked sources for my information. Better than arguing from noble ignorance.

Due process...like passing a law with background checks and waiting periods? Yup, sounds like due process!

Don't forget strict scrutiny. Just passing a law isn't due process if the law is unconstitutional- like DC's handgun ban.

The DOJ statistics you cite are also misleading...as I pointed out GUN SHOWS ARE NOTORIOUS FOR ILLEGAL SALES. So that .06% rises to somewhere between .06% and 39%. Are you being deliberately misleading? At this point I have to take just about any number you throw at me with a grain of salt.

Just because something is 'notorious' doesn't mean it's true. 80% of guns used by criminals come from 'friends/family' or 'street/illegal sources'. 20% come from some retail source, of which 0.6% are gun shows.

There's no spin or misleading, it's right there in the table on the first page.

How many estimates are there on the number of times that brandishing a firearm was totally unnecessary? Great estimate, though. 2.5m - 800k = 1.7 million. I got a chuckle out of that one, so I checked it. Is this also a factoid you grabbed from an NRA website? I ask, because it is brutally flawed: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Did you actually read any of the articles, or did you just google it? What flaws did you identify?

It doesn't offer ANY protection. A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gunsinth...

Now you're citing the brady bunch? That's like citing the bible in a scientific discussion. Kellerman and Hemenway have been repeatedly debunked- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436

Are you asserting ("doesn't offer ANY") that there are NO defensive uses of guns? Visit the guns forum for some examples counter to your assertion.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Even if it really reflected attitudes about gun control, it would be irrelevant. Nice graph though. Also courtesy of the NRA?

Try gallup. Here are some more (from gallup)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/recent-shootings-gun-control-support-fading.aspx





Or CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

I never asserted that I was right because more people agree with me, I merely stated that you are in a minority.

You aren't going to convert me. I'm not going to convert you. It's been a fun chat but I should really be working rather than running down all your dubious data.

Thanks, I'll take that as concession.

[HankyDubs]

73. I suspected you would declare victory

And that's fine. I just don't have the time in my day to check all of your facts for each post, and you have proven yourself to be completely disingenuous, so in order to debate you I'd have to spend my day checking each invalid statistic you cite. It is clear from your large volume of posts on the issue that you are obsessed (if not a professional, paid advocate). I have a range of interests, and have not spent my life compiling arguments and statistics to refute your inaccuracies.

I will point out a few of your errors here, just because it's fun. I shouldn't, I should be getting back to work.

You cite a Gallup poll which you are using to suggest I am in the minority. The question (paraphrased) was: Do you feel that laws governing sale of firearms should be more strict, less strict, or kept the same?

In fact, your poll shows that I am a member of the plurality (usually a distinct majority and NEVER EVER a minority) for every single year of the poll, and that your position (that gun laws are too strict i.e. waiting periods) is a tiny minority--just under 10%. You did say you opposed waiting periods so that unquestionably makes you a member of this teeny tiny 10% minority...BUT OF COURSE IT DOESN'T MATTER EITHER WAY.

Moreover, the CNN poll you cite takes great care to explain that such a sudden drop is probably an anomaly related to the political climate. Even so it also shows that only an eensy weensy minority (15%) supports your "gun laws are too strict" position.

Your point is not legally valid, so you try to gin up moral panic.

Actually my point is legally valid. There isn't a background check required for citizens to vote, nor is there a waiting period. Legally, as well as morally, there is a recognized legal difference between press/voting/speech rights and gun rights. You have repeatedly conflated these as if they were equivalent, so you are simply wrong on the facts.

"Did you actually read any of the articles, or did you just google it?"

Got me, I just googled it. As I said, I'm not a paid gun-control advocate or a single-issue obsessive, where it is clear you are fixated on this single issue.

I think Hemenway has done a very good job pointing out the flaws in the Kleck-Gertz survey. I should note that the 2.5 million figure simply doesn't pass the laugh test, which is why a sane person (including the relevant government entities) immediately rejects it....but Hemenway's criticisms of the survey are here:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

The most telling for me was that the survey was not conducted by an outside entity, but by a firm operated by Gertz, which immediately invalidates the whole thing. You can't presume that the questioner isn't acting with bias, after all the questioner knows what the desired outcome is. You've clearly spent a large amount of time attempting to attack research done by others, but for some reason this detail escapes you...because you are ready to overlook flaws if the data supports your own view.

The National Research Council has said that Kleck's estimates appear to be exaggerated and that "some of what respondents designate as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others."--That gets back to my immediate reaction, which was that many of these incidents are simply gun nut jerkoffs brandishing guns at other people, though there was no need to do so for self-defense or any other reason. Nevertheless Gary Kleck gets hold of that gun nut jerkoff on the phone and the gun nut jerkoff reports this as a "self-defense" incident. How do we verify that it was an actual self-defense incident? We can't. Relying on self-reporting by random individuals will lead to inaccuracies, which Kleck then sloppily extrapolated to come to his ridiculously high 2.5m estimate.

Note also that the number of robbery victims estimated by Kleck's study was almost five times higher than the estimate from the NCVS by the DOJ and a hilarious 25x higher than NCVS surveys on defensive gun uses.

Now really, have yourself a good life, pat yourself on the back and declare victory if you like. Dishonest folks are wont to do these things.

[X_Digger]

74. My, that was disingenuous..

You cite a Gallup poll which you are using to suggest I am in the minority. The question (paraphrased) was: Do you feel that laws governing sale of firearms should be more strict, less strict, or kept the same?

You are in the minority in your espoused 'collective rights' opinion, as I mentioned in post #69. The question in that poll was, "Do you believe that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns."

The second set of numbers was just to show you how far your opinion is from the rest of us. A plurality want gun laws to stay the same. There goes your waiting period, there goes your 'assault weapon' ban. There goes your microstamping, regulating private sales, or handgun bans.

Actually my point is legally valid. There isn't a background check required for citizens to vote, nor is there a waiting period. Legally, as well as morally, there is a recognized legal difference between press/voting/speech rights and gun rights. You have repeatedly conflated these as if they were equivalent, so you are simply wrong on the facts.

And you have repeatedly ignored the legal precedent that says that purported 'harm' from a right has not and can not be used as a justification to abridge that right. Please google 'strict scrutiny' to see what criteria must be met, and in what manner.

The most telling for me was that the survey was not conducted by an outside entity, but by a firm operated by Gertz, which immediately invalidates the whole thing. You can't presume that the questioner isn't acting with bias, after all the questioner knows what the desired outcome is. You've clearly spent a large amount of time attempting to attack research done by others, but for some reason this detail escapes you...because you are ready to overlook flaws if the data supports your own view.

Yet Hemenway uses those same methods for his 'studies' purporting to show that the risks of gun ownership outweigh any benefits. (JAMA, NEJM, Journal of Trauma..)

Any criticism of the other 15 DGU surveys / studies? Or is that as far as you got?

The National Research Council has said that Kleck's estimates appear to be exaggerated and that "some of what respondents designate as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others."--That gets back to my immediate reaction, which was that many of these incidents are simply gun nut jerkoffs brandishing guns at other people, though there was no need to do so for self-defense or any other reason. Nevertheless Gary Kleck gets hold of that gun nut jerkoff on the phone and the gun nut jerkoff reports this as a "self-defense" incident. How do we verify that it was an actual self-defense incident? We can't. Relying on self-reporting by random individuals will lead to inaccuracies, which Kleck then sloppily extrapolated to come to his ridiculously high 2.5m estimate.

A non-crime was committed, no film at 11.

Is it your contention that there is no way to measure such events? That's a nice position to take if you wish to minimize the number of DGU's- it makes the number unattainable.

Rather, serious criminologists do things like asking the same question multiple times, in different ways, looking for internal inconsistencies. Call the survey participant 90 days later and ask the same set of questions again. Any inconsistency means you throw out that DGU.

[Recursion]

32. I don't have a right to own an assault rifle

They've been very tightly controlled for over 70 years.

[SteveM]

50. More corrections...

I have already corrected you about the notion of "assault rifles" elsewhere.

The right to keep and bear arms is NOT contingent on a well regulated militia; hence, the rest of your "argument" about what is "not 'well-regulated'", avoiding "background checks," "waiting periods etc." does not follow, nor hold up under scrutiny.

You should re-examine the notion of what constitutes "well-regulated," BTW. That notion is far less sophisticated compared to training standards in any of the standing armed forces in the U.S. In the event, it applies only to the powers granted the federal government, and also to the states, in the Articles.

I should also point out that background checks (which I support), "waiting periods etc." as well as other gun "interventionist strategies" have not been shown to be effective in correcting or improving on any of the societal ills gun-controllers claim as important. SEE: CDC studies referencing gun-control laws.

[HankyDubs]

61. correcting you

"I should also point out that background checks (which I support), "waiting periods etc." as well as other gun "interventionist strategies" have not been shown to be effective in correcting or improving on any of the societal ills gun-controllers claim as important."

Really? How many Japanese citizens were victims of gun crimes last year? Why do you "support" these things if you are going to deny their value in the next breath?

"The right to keep and bear arms is NOT contingent on a well regulated militia"

Don't make bald assertions.

[DeMartMan]

22. You and I know that

But talking to them about the 2nd is going on the offence instead of always letting them attack us. If we can get them to engage in a civil discussion, we are half way there.

[SteveM]

51. "You and I know" what may be in error. Best to argue from a sound basis. nt

[SteveM]

48. Corrections, here...

The "militia clause" is merely the Federal government asserting its right to call for a militia (as outlined in the powers of the Articles), then goes on to say that the Federal government cannot infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Articles grant powers; the Bill of Rights recognizes the rights of the people. It should be noted that most constitutional scholars, political scientists, historians, etc. who have written on the Second Amendment agree that 2A guarantees an individual right, not some mythical "community right" embodied in a militia.

As for "bubbas with assault rifles," what do you mean by "assault rifle?" "Assault rifles" is a expression used by the military, armorers and firearms experts to denote carbine-sized weapons capable of FULL AUTO fire. The AR-15s, SKS-types, and AK-47 "clones" you see at gun stores and at the range are SEMI-AUTO fire; hence not "assault rifles." BTW, the expression "assault weapon" is a term of art used by gun-controllers to confused the public about the differences I have outlined above.

I agree with you that the Second Amendment should not be repealed, and we should re-think and reduce the expenditures on the military. I don't know what you mean by "national defense based on organized local militias." The structure for militias is already in place.

[SteveM]

47. Mayor Bloomberg supports mosque location -- and gun-control.nt

[SemperEadem]

9. Ok, if you've never been to Central Park in NY, then you can't

speak to what's it's like there.

That clip negated everything else about this clip. Worthless.

[DeMartMan]

11. I will address what I think is the problem

Your last line isn't worth commenting on, but the rest maybe that you felt that it was a dig at NY, I assure it was not. You have to admit that Central Park has a bad reputation and because of that one might want to stay clear. The point in the video was that carrying a gun so that one could go into a dagerous place doesn't make it any safer.

[SomeGuynTexas]

20. What age are you....12? 11? 10?

"The point in the video was that carrying a gun so that one could go into a dagerous place doesn't make it any safer."

LOL. Tell that to any cop or service member you see. They may disagree.

[DeMartMan]

25. 53 and that means you're no longer interested, ddd growing old sucks, LOL

As to your comment about a cop, well he is trained, is suppose to be sober while on duty and I think that the people who would be alarmed by seeing men like the guy in the video walk into the playground would actually be relieved to see an armed cop. Do keep in mind that no one so far has suggested outlawing all guns. And with all that we do have to point out the high number of police shootings.

[HALO141]

33. Cops receive some training. That's about all you can really say.

The percentage of LEO's who are actually proficient shooters is astoundingly low. Single digits low. It is not uncommon for many officers to go through their entire career only ever drawing their weapon for their yearly qualifications and the standards for those qualifications are rather low.

The demonstrated ability test for the Texas Concealed Handgun License mirrors the law enforcement qualification test almost exactly. The primary difference being that law enforcement must shoot a few rounds one-handed with both the strong and support hands. CHL applicants are not required to shoot one-handed. Some time ago the CHL test was passed by an individual who was legally blind. I know the instructor who administered the test. (The individual in question had no interest in obtaining a license. He just wanted to see if he could pass the test.)

Law enforcement has received quite a lot of training, to be sure, but very little of that training was in the use of firearms. Their level of proficiency does not merit the confidence the rest of the public have in them.

[DeMartMan]

35. Don't reword my statement into nothing or take it out of context

Shooting are going up, but the question that you have to answer is would it be safer if no one had a gun or if everyone had one?

[X_Digger]

41. Are shootings going up? Got a cite?

According to preliminary 2009 data, they're down (again).

[HALO141]

43. Your question is moot.

You will never be able to eradicate firearms so suggesting that as a possibility is ridiculous. Likewise, you'll never get equal compliance on the other side of the spectrum.

[SteveM]

53. I'd like to see some sources since we are in a long-term crime reduction...

trend, even while the number of firearms in civilian hands has gone up by over 100,000,000.

NOTE: the 15 year trend downward in violent crime (along with the number of arms trending upward) is NOT meant as an argument that more guns=less crime, but only goes to show that the MUCH MORE POPULAR gun-control meme "more guns=more crime" is NOT proved.

Your hypothetical question has no value in that such a condition of "no one a gun" or "everyone a gun" is not really tenable. In connection with this, do you have any sources where someone or group has advocated that "everyone ?" I certainly don't support crims and thugs having them -- but they seem to get them anyway, right? Prohibition is like that.

[SteveM]

52. My suggestion for effective argument...

Fully recognize the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms for individuals, and recognizing that the laws proposed for regulations -- waiting periods, number of guns per-month, caliber restrictions, ammo type, semi-auto or revolver, registration, "may-issue" laws, etc. -- are unconstitutional and not proved to be effective. THEN you can go after the 14 Amendment tinkerers and hit them with the "privileges and immunities" clause. The main reason why 14A was passed in the first place? So unarmed newly-freed blacks would at least not have their INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms suspended or abrogated by gangs, the KKK, Southern state police forces, and, yes, militias.

You should know that I have already brought this up to some folks crowing about the "naturalized citizen" definition.

[greiner3]

34. And your age?

Or is that IQ? Many cops and their associations say that the more guns on the streets the less safe an average citizen is and the less safe that cop is. As for service members, I'd say that if they are PTSD or haven't gotten the 'back to civilized life training' yet then I'd say a lot of service members don't carry guns. Death is one thing but to court it is a measure of idiots.

[USNEO]

57. And you'll find that

most of those cops are what I like to call cop-o-crats, that is, the political cops who are answerable to their political masters, the majority of street cops support lawful americans RKBA and to carry concealed.

[X_Digger]

10. No, and it wouldn't matter..

You seem to think the right flows from the second amendment. It does not. The Bill of Rights is not a 'the people can' document, it's a 'the government shall not' document.

How do I know this? The preamble says so.

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

[old mark]

12. More idiotic anti-gun bullshit. You can feel free to repeal the 2nd after you have

repealed the 1st.

Many progressive/liberal people exercise their 2A rights regularly, and we have no intention of giving them away to dwellers in some perfect world fantasy land.

If you hate guns, don't own any. Leave MY RIGHTS alone.

mark

[DeMartMan]

14. So you want to protect

your right to carry a gun, even into a playground? Do you realize that if the 14th Amendment was repealed as the Republicans want it to be, that it would weaken the 2 amendment? I'm not trying to put you into a cold sweat that someone is going to take your gun away, but you do have to realize that when other rights are denied, (even if you like seeing those ones denied)that it weakens the whole Constitution and makes it easier for someone some day to take your gun.

[SteveM]

54. Visit the Guns Forum and you would know the answer to your question...

I don't know of ANYONE who is an active contributor to the Guns: Forum as well as a supporter of the Second who is not aware of the citizenship definition and privileges and immunities clause of the 14th.

You have a point about confronting some Teabagger about their inconsistencies, but be sure to fully support both 2A and 14A and you'll get some mileage out of the argument. I note that Senator Cornyn (GOPer from Texas) has backed away from his early frothings about 14A.

[DeMartMan]

72. Not About Guns rather about Rights

I realize that most Progressive are opposed to repealing any of our rights, but Cons on the other hand are a different thing. I made this video as a tool for Progressive to open a dialog with the right and win. What I didn't expect was to run into some posters who act like Cons, but then we all know that the Far-Right is paying people to post on Progressive sites to cause mayhem and division. One of them even followed me to my YouTube site to continue the insults, which instead of discouraging me, only assured me of what I was doing. It was pointed out that there really shouldn't be a harsh reaction to asking the question about repealing the 2nd, after all, it's just a question, but the video and subsequent discussion would dispel the Republican talking points about repealing the 14th and limiting the 1st Amendments. They can't deny Muslims the right to build a Mosque and deny citizenship to brown babies without endangering their precious 2nd Amendment.

Even the NRA has come out in support of the 14th Amendment realizing that it help the 2nd, but the crazies in the Tea parties don't get that, so I had hoped that this video might help some of them wake up. It's the old thing of "an injury to one is an injury to all." Just because I don't own a firearm doesn't mean it is a good idea to take the right away from someone else. The next right to go may be one that I hold dear and same is true to the Cons who want to take away the rights of others. I hope that people realize that this really isn't about guns but rather about rights. Thank you for your input as it has been very helpful.

[AlbertCat]

24. Many progressive/liberal people exercise their 2A rights regularly,

They join well regulated militias in order to protect the government? That's great!

[DeMartMan]

26. Great point Albert Cat

This thread has gotten better now that we all are talking and this is why this subject can be useful in talking to the right.

[HALO141]

39. "Well regulated" does not mean what you think it means.

And you must be unfamiliar with the definition of "militia" as codified by Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311 of United States Code.

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA


Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7), Sept.
2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V, Sec. 524(a),
Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc10.wais&start=1322366&SIZE=4357&TYPE=TEXT

[SteveM]

55. Technically, all able-bodied citizens already ARE in the miltia. nt

[HALO141]

13. It's a worthless video.

The amateurish crap at the back end is just insulting.

[DeMartMan]

15. Will post your YouTube account and lets compare

I know when a video is good, and the fact that you would take cheap shoots instead of talking about the subject only tells me that you know that you can't argue the facts.

[masshole]

17. I won't go as far to say it's worthless

But this digital-dubbed talking head technique I've seen a lot lately DOES cause the message to lose some of its effectiveness.

[DeMartMan]

19. I never claimed to be a pro or rich

I never claimed to be a pro or rich enough to hire all the voices that would be needed for these videos. I have learned for the most part how to make them speak so that they are understandable and clear. In all reality the only problem is giving them emotions, but even with one draw back the message which is what is most important is getting out. I would love to have the money to take my videos up to another notch but that's not going to happen. Of course if I was to turn pro, my videos would no longer be free, so with that I will say that to anyone who is dissatisfied with my video I will return the money that you gave me to watch my videos.

Joking aside, I am sure that you can see the value in getting the right to defend that they see as a holy right, it doesn't take to many more steps to get them to see that all the talk against the rest of the Constitution by the Republican leadership is anti-American.

You have a great day.

[HALO141]

27. The "quality" of the dubbing isn't the issue.

It's the fact that you did it at all. You're INVENTING people that don't exist, trying to put a face on the sound bites. The only point of view is yours. If that's not enough then so be it. There's more than a little intellectual dishonesty in not only putting words in people's mouths but inventing the mouths to begin with.

Propaganda is repugnant, regardless of its production values.

[DeMartMan]

30. You are making an erroneous assumption

You are making an erroneous assumption that I don't research the issue before making a video. So, there is no dishonesty, some times I get friends to send me their thoughts on a given issue and I animate it. BTB, what is your YouTube Channel?

[HALO141]

40. I make no such assumption.

Due to the nature of the video we don't know whose opinions those are.

I don't make videos so I don't have a Youtube channel.

[HALO141]

23. what facts?

Post some facts and I'll be happy to discuss them. All I hear is some opinion.

[DeMartMan]

29. Watch the Video if you haven't

and then discuss the facts about the issues laided out. I'm sure that you have something of worth to add, so give it a shot.

[X_Digger]

31. What facts?

You creepily presenting yourself as a kid and a couple of women to espouse your own opinions? The only facts were presented in the first minute and a half.

[DeMartMan]

37. There was a lot of info

The video was researched, I had input from others, and now it's your turn to talk about the facts. Sorry, if they aren't as obvious as they should be.

[X_Digger]

42. Please, what facts?

The fact that Washington state's firearm preemption laws means that Mayor Nickels couldn't set whatever policy he wishes? That's the only fact I got from your video. The rest? Bloviating opinion, couched behind creepy animation.

[HALO141]

36. As I said before, I did watch it.

The media report in the first half laid out the story that the signage was contrary to state law and that the city counsel acted surprisingly swiftly to make them compliant. What follows is emotion-driven opinion, completely devoid of any fact. I can only infer that the intent is to so overwhelm the viewer with empathy towards the supposed characters that we abrogate our rights to our own opinions and let the emotional plea stand unchallenged. Good luck on that one.

As a tool for manipulating others (because that's what propaganda is) the video is completely ineffective. If you actually had the budget and production facilities to do a bunch of man-on-the street interviews and actually film people's objections you MIGHT persuade a very few fence sitters. The debate over RKABA is already so polarized, however, that you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't already made up their mind one way or the other. And, as someone else already said, there's a sort of creepy quality to it that's not helping either.

[onpatrol98]

38. The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010 clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,<1><2> and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

---------------------------------------------------
I may not like it...but, that seems to be pretty straight forward. Only an idiot would think its acceptable to take a gun to a playground. But, that goes back to the whole idea of..."just because you "can" doesn't mean you "should".

[kenfrequed]

44. This is politically stupid.

Machiavelli wrote that you never disarmed an armed people when you come to power and the Repukes get this, which is why they are screaming about gun rights though there has not been one legislative attempt that the President has supported to abridge the right to bear arms.

Were we to do so we would be playing right into their hands. We should do nothing about guns and leave things as they are.

Who gives a frig about guns anyhow? I have long thought that it was a blind alley and that it detracted from the actual root causes of violence, poverty, and social inequality.

The best thing Democrats could do right now is to stand up and loudly state that they are no longer seeking to create gun control laws and instead they will be working on poverty and education both of which are far more effective at reducing violence than any increase or reduction in firearms.

[DeMartMan]

45. I meant this video and thread as a tool

It seemed like a perfect tool to get the right to talk positively about the 1 and 14 Amendments. This has never been about repealing the 2nd Amendment, as I said in my opening statement. The video and poll is meant to spark conversation with the right and get them to agree that the Constitution is best left alone. I think there is more going on with some of the reactions here, I just don't see why so many on a Liberal board would be so defensive and upset over the subject.

[kenfrequed]

46. Because it is idiotic.

Provacative postings like this just get repeated elsewhere as 'proof' that "them damned dirty dems are after 'ole bessy."

Also, you managed to complain about my lack of discussing your video while ignoring everything I wrote about abandoning the gun argument and going after poverty, job loss, and education... so... that means this thread means exactly what to you?

[SteveM]

56. To be fair to DeMart Man, there is a point here...

One cannot "re-think" 14A and not subject to tinkering the "privileges and immunities" clause of that Amendment which is what guaranteed the right of everyone (including newly-freed blacks) the right to keep and bear arms -- that was the MAIN REASON for passing 14A in 1868.

The best thing we should do as Democrats is to rid OUR OWN PARTY PLATFORM of gun-control language like the failed assault weapons ban which is STILL called for. Jeez, talk about a target on our back!

[DeMartMan]

59. Thank you

This is the point in using the video and the subject, most right-wingers will hold on to their guns and the 2nd Amendment tighter than they will to racial and religious bigotry. If we can get them to recognize the value of all Amendments to them and if we let go of the 2nd they will feel as if they have won and let go of the rest. It's the old trick of taking something away from someone and making them want it all the more, want it to the point of scarifying everything else. As I have said, the video, poll and thread really isn't about repealing the 2nd Amendment, rather about making them to only focus on it, so that when we give it to them, they will feel as if there isn't anything else to fight for.

[USNEO]

58. Very well put

now if the Dem Party would remove gun control from the platform and started embracing the 2nd Amend., we would own the congress and Presidency for generations.

[Furiousliberal]

64. the 2nd amendment is out dated

It's that simple.

[HALO141]

67. You're wrong.

Even more simple.

[DeMartMan]

66. I am sorry about one thing here

It seems that some are missing my point. I really wasn't trying to push for gun control, or doing anything to the 2nd Amendment. I was trying to say here is a way to make the right concede that taking anything away from the Constitution (even rewriting it) is a bad idea. We know that they won't do that for the 1st or 14th, but they will for the 2nd. By getting them to concede that one point we might actually be able to have a duologue. That was my point in all of this, but it has been misunderstood. I blame myself, as I work late on this and didn't do my best in writing it. I know that I had a few typos and somethings must have been poorly worded. For the misunderstanding I am sorry. Any way, I am about to start making my next video, which I hope will not have the problems of this one.