The Second Ammendment--Americas Constitutional equivalent of the body's Appendix! (Michael Bloomberg, parade, Mexican)

[mwruckman]

I think there is an arguement that needs to be rejected for the nonsense it really is. The idea that the right to keep and bear arms keeps the ravages of tyranny at bay. It does not, Why do we argue that guns don't kill people that the people holding the guns that do. The same is true for tyranny people keep it at bay. People on all sides of the poletic divide and process. People of humanity, real values and empathy. Failing that guns are just a turbocharged technologic machine to get us any level of tyranny we choose. Now this isn't abstract. we share this hemisphere with 500 million other Americans in nearly two dozen nations who love their guns, have even more nonexistent gun regulations and are the only nations approaching America in the widespread of gun ownership, gun violence and death. They even use those guns from time to time dispatch a tyrranical despot. Now the problem is the men and maybe women who pulled the triggers. Those proud holisters were on the hips of a young Cuban doctor named Fidel, a younger Argentine medical student named Ernesto (prefered his nickname Che) and a earnest Nicraguan called Danny. None of these man cared to advance freedom or justice and didn't. All guns did was make it possible for small groups to come down from the mountains or jungles, out of the shadows and take power. In fact I am unaware of a single instance were guns have kept dictatoship or tyranny at bay in the Americas.Now there is always a first time but I think it betting on it would be a suckers bet.

Today is MLK day where we honor a man of his convictions who believed in the power of non-violence he learned from another Great Spirit Mahatma Gandhi. Both men were taken from the world of man by gunfire. In thes cases the use of firearms certainly kept tyranny at bay.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by plannine

Robert Bork, the infamous right wing judge nominated by Ronald Reagan, said in 1989 that the words of the Second Amendment "guarantee the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms"

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. Alexander Hamilton

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. ..Noah Webster

James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.


Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ....

[outbacknv]

Originally Posted by mwruckman

Today is MLK day where we honor a man of his convictions who believed in the power of non-violence he learned from another Great Spirit Mahatma Gandhi. Both men were taken from the world of man by gunfire. In thes cases the use of firearms certainly kept tyranny at bay.

Yet another attempt on your part to use half truths and emotion to push your personal anti-freedom agenda.

It's a shame you feel the need to resort to such disingenuous tactics in an attempt to sway others to your way of thinking.

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

Well said!!Be prepared for the personal attacks that are going to follow!!! I have been called a socialist, a George Soros and jewish natzi collaborator ! and I only sought to suggest lawmakers take a look at a ban on high capacity ammo!! Good luck!!

Don't worry about me. I got my scientific credentials in New York and worked at a place called BNL for 15+ years , you get a thick skin when you get into a arguments with scientists who got their street smarts in the Bronx or Brooklyn. or the Lower East Side My friend, boss and mentor got his in East New York. Its too bad we can't let the Yiddish fly.

[jeepejeep]

This is a very interesting article on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:
ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS 2ND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman

I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial

Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles

Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement

English for several years at Van Nuys High School, as well as

having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin. I was referred

to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction of

the LA Unified School District, who described Mr. Brocki as the

foremost expert in grammar in the Los Angeles Unified School

District -- the person she and others go to when they need a

definitive answer on English grammar.



I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl Broyles referred me,

then asked him to parse 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."
Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was overpunctuated, but
that the meaning could be extracted anyway.
"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a
participial phrase modifying "electorate"

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of
the people"
"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an
adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"
"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase modifying "right"
I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it
clearer. Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well-schooled electorate is
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to
keep and read books to a well-schooled electorate -- say,
registered voters with a high-school diploma?" He said, "No."

I then identified my purpose in calling him, and read him the

Second Amendment in full:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."

He said he thought the sentence had sounded familiar, but that
he hadn't recognized it.

I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same
as the sentence I first quoted you?" He said, "yes." I asked
him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer. He transformed
it the same way as the first sentence: "Because 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 infringed."

I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two hundred
years. He said, "No."

I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to
restrict the right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated
militia." He said, "no." According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence
means that the people \are\ the militia, and that the people
have the right which is mentioned.

I asked him again to make sure:
Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right
can be restricted to "a well-regulated militia?"
Brocki: "No, I can't see that."

Schulman: "Could another, professional in English grammar or
linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his
professional reputation on this opinion, and be quoted on this.
He said, "Yes."

At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion
on the Second Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and
bear arms.

J. Neil Schulman
July 17, 1991

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by mwruckman

Don't worry about me. I got my scientific credentials in New York and worked at a place called BNL for 15+ years , you get a thick skin when you get into a arguments with scientists who got their street smarts in the Bronx or Brooklyn. or the Lower East Side My friend, boss and mentor got his in East New York. Its too bad we can't let the Yiddish fly.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by outbacknv

Yet another attempt on your part to use half truths and emotion to push your personal anti-freedom agenda.

It's a shame you feel the need to resort to such disingenuous tactics in an attempt to sway others to your way of thinking.

Indeed disingenuous and shameful.

I suspect even though a man of non-violent demonstration that Dr. King did not support the Jim Crow laws which kept black Americans from lawfully defending their lives and those of their families with firearms when needed.

The racially and religiously discriminatory motivations behind gun control laws in this nation's history are well documented.

Primary Historical Sources

Primary Historical Sources

The Klan's Favorite Law - Reason Magazine

No Guns For Negroes?

[20yrsinBranson]

Originally Posted by mwruckman

In over 230 years that this great Republic has been in existence things have changed, there are many historical curiousities that while quaint and interesting no longer serve a useful societial purpose. Even in our bodies there is the humble appendix that also seems to serve no useful purpose and all too frerquently becomes inflamed with life threatening consequenses. We undergo the knife and cut out the source of our pain and suffering. The United States Constitution and its Addendum the Bill of Rights is not imuune to having bits and pieces that history has passed by. This document is not written in stone by the finger of GOD. The Founding Fathers were not gods or demigods and would probably be the first to affriome this statement. They were men of good faith, trust and intentions and were the great comprimisers. How many of the great issues of the day were settled over a pint of Ale and a great man of letters retiring for an evening to get it all down on paper. I propose that the Second Ammendment of the Bill of Rights is just such a piece of constitutional anacronysm. It very likely serves no useful purpose! The purpose can't be to violently overthrow the US Government. We made even the mere advocacy of doing so a Federal crime in the 1950s. Do you really think the Founding Fathers intended to let citizens terminate a Presidency or a Congressman? Our stuborn refusial to control the unfettered access to firearms has cost 1 in 9 US Presidents their lives and scared the face of US history. In the same time, how many British Kings, Queens or Prime Ministers has been claimed by gunfire? It can't have anything to do with forming a well ordered militia. We have gone far beyong the day when we relied on a force of able bodied men mustered out on the town commons to protect home and hearth. Is that really practical in an age of ICBMs, Smart Bombs and unmanned drones? If this were the true purpose of the Second Ammendment we would have gun laws like the two modern states that rely on citizen militias and reservists to be the foundation of their national defense, the Israelis and the Swiss.
Like our Israeli or Swiss friends, you have a gun the authorities know who you are, where to find you and your phone number, you have to demonstrate your competence and you have to be ready to report even if the call comes at 3 am. So the only purpose the Second Ammendment and our unreasonable gun laws seem to have is to have is to provide a future Jared Loughner a way to go out in a blaze of gunfire if not the glory his twisted mind creates. Did you notice the little smile on that wild eyed face. He enjoyed it , by god he enjoyed every round he got off. It is time to chamge the Second Ammendment and our our gun laws, if not to make this a more perfect union but to ensure that the face of Jared Loughner does not become the face that the world comes to associate with America. We can do it.

When you are writing future posts and a wiggly red line appears under a word, it means that you have misspelled it.

Every citizen cannot be blamed nor held responsible for the bad behavior of a few miscreants. I am thoroughly sorry that there are men (and women) out there who feel that they must alter history by shooting someone. However, there have been many important historical figures who have been assassinated by sword or knife. Do you propose to make all potential weapons illegal so that no harm will come to anyone at the hands of some demented fool?

The fact of the matter is that we, as citizens of a free country have the inalienable RIGHT to protect hearth and home from foes of all descriptions. And that right is given to us by the second amendment. If you wish to give away your rights, then please be my guest and move to some other country that does not make freedom a priority.

As for me, I think Patrick Henry said in best on March 23, 1775 when he said..."Give me liberty or give me death". It is a philosophy I live by.

20yrsinBranson

[jmellc]

If the Second Amendment applied only to militias, the newly formed government would have proceeded to collect all firearms not proven to be for militia use.

You who do not wish to own guns are free to not own them. Those of us who wish to own them are free to do so, at least right now, in most places.

If your are truly concerned about crime and violence, I suggest you look up parole absconders and repeat offenders in your area. Follow crimes in your community and see how many perpetrators have long criminal records. Note that many are already out on parole for another crime & will still get bail for the present crime. Light a fire under your elected officials to increase prosecution and imprisonment for violent crimes and restitution for property crimes.

Anyone suggesting disarming citizens has not examined the issues objectively. And we haven't even discussed terrorism.

[Electron]

Originally Posted by mwruckman

So the only purpose the Second Ammendment and our unreasonable gun laws seem to have is to have is to provide a future Jared Loughner a way to go out in a blaze of gunfire if not the glory his twisted mind creates. Did you notice the little smile on that wild eyed face. He enjoyed it , by god he enjoyed every round he got off. It is time to chamge the Second Ammendment and our our gun laws, if not to make this a more perfect union but to ensure that the face of Jared Loughner does not become the face that the world comes to associate with America. We can do it.

Wrong.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment and our concealed carry laws is to ensure that you and I enjoy the rest of those inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life indicates a right to protect and defend oneself from others. The right to liberty indicates the right to protect oneself and their loved ones from government. Jared Loughner is a dreanged criminal. Deranged criminals, in case you haven't noticed, do not heed the law to begin with. What on earth could possibly convince you that by criminalizing the ownership of a gun, gun crime would cease? While your proposal is well intentioned on the outside, it has no guts. Ever hear of Columbine, or the VaTech mass shootings?????? They occurred in what the government has named 'Gun Free' zones? Someone forgot to tell the deranged criminals that it was against the law to have a gun there. Like I said, you have good intentions, but they are misguided. Had those places not been a "Designated Victim Zone" the results, I am sure, would have been much different.