Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Response to Dog Gone at Penigma (Original post)
Post removed
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)the first phrase of the second amendment?
I always thought it was to have a militia member keep a rifle, so that the militia would be ready. I didn't think that this so-called right meant that any schmuck could own a gun.
The NRA may provide rudimentary education, but they have been a staunch advocate for gun and ammo manufacturers lately.
They are no more than a business lobbying group now, with education as a little side business.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)notably during prohibition.
Now they are trying to undo all the previous legislation regulating guns.
There is an actual 'repeal the 2nd Amendment' petition on the White House gov. site.
Makes more sense than the stupid recession petitions.
LiberalFighter
(50,942 posts)It is about profit for the gun industry.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)Therefore they are, of necessity, all about the right to sell everyone as many guns as possible without any limitation = gun rights.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)That's right, and the militia was made up of the people, who kept and bore their own arms.
So which schmucks can own guns? Pretty much everyone who hasn't committed certain crimes or been legally declared crazy.
Demobrat
(8,980 posts)ANY schmuck can own a gun. Legal or illegal doesn't matter a whit. What matters is that this country is awash in guns and ANYBODY who wants an arsenal can get one. If I wanted a gun and couldn't get one legally I'd go down to the local coffee shop and tell one of the lowlifes there I needed a gun and had some bucks - and he'd ask me what kind. That's all it takes.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)Militias kept armories, and they bought guns in quantity.
At the beginning of the revolution, the revolutionary forces had people, but not guns. The raided the British armories, and took theirs.
Militias did not want to rely on outdated or ill-maintained weapons, or mismatched firearms. They wanted their members to use the same or very equivalent weaponry.
The primary sources back that up, the early militias kept records.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)But it is not a limiting condition either grammatically, historically, or through legal precedent.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Perhaps if you read it, and understand it as written, for the time of history that it was written, you MIGHT understand, that it was the well regulated militia's people who should be able to have guns, and not just any schmuck.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And, going by your assertions, since everyone was a member of the militia, everyone would be expected to provide their own weapon. But of course, the Amendment doesn't say any of that, nor make any such restrictions. Try to diagram the sentance any way you like, you can't make it mean what you claim.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I don't know what a sentance is, but I do know what the sentence says.
It says that a well regulated militia is necessary for proper defense, and rather than a standing army, we grant the right of the people of these militias to keep and bear arms.
Were little children members of the militia? Mothers? The invalid? As a matter of fact, there were a lot of people back during the times of our Founding Fathers who were quite religious, and could be considered conscientious objectors. They surely were not part of the militia.
I don't make a sentence mean what I want. I merely read the history of the time it was written, and not make it convenient for me
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Which state are ya in? I'll look it up for you.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I'm 68 and live in NY.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)The 2nd amendment is obsolete.
We have a 'standing military'; and state militias have been replaced with our national guard.
In a modern world, one that the founding fathers did not anticipate, with things like an air force, that is as it should be.
The document is not sacred, it was not handed down from heaven on tablets. It was crafted by flawed human beings who intended it to evolve as the world changed.
It should probably be repealed as obsolete.
The notion that there were a significant number of conscientious objectors, post ratification of the Constitution, is not supported by any primary sources. It is something pulled out of someone's behind, made up shit.
As I've written elsewhere, I truly despise sloppy history and revisionist history. Sadly our political right has purged themselves of sane, reasonable moderates, and moved far right, with delusional people who tend to believe in a factually inaccurate, ideology driven view of everything, not ONLY history but science, economics, literature, you name it.
They are fools who act like horses that run back into a burning stable. Their stable is where they feel safe; the feel frightened by fire, so no matter how self-destructive they run back to the place they feel safe. In political terms, no matter how disastrous, the right returns to the same disastrous and failed ideas and ideology. It is the reason that despite the rejection and repudiation of Dubya, the GOP ran Romney, Ryan and the same economic and other policies, appealing to the same demographic base.
The right is incapable of change, incapable of new ideas, incapable of adapting. The more they lose, the more they return to their version of the political burning stable.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)most people did NOT have their own; private firearms tended to be reserved for the wealthy and the absolute most rural, and overwhelmingly at the time of the revolution, those weapons were not produced here in the U.S.
When the revolution started, most people acquired weapons by taking them from the British military depots and armories.
And most militias did not require people to have their own; the primary source documents are quite clear that they provided their own weapons in the sense that the militia BOUGHT them, and housed them in their own central location/armories. There are records of such armories, purchase orders, etc. With the exception of those people who added to the regular ranks during times of conflict, who might bring their own weapons, the muster day events were quite clear.
Like any military force, the militias wanted as standardized and consistent arms as any other military. It's just another silly myth that everyone provided their own weapons, and more sloppy history.
I hate sloppy history, and I'm even less tolerant of revisionist history, like that done by Barton et al.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... that Guy Fawkes (whose image you chose as an avatar) was a big fan of RKBA and violent overthrow of the government.
Sort of like a pacifist wearing a Che Guevara T-Shirt.
young_at_heart
(3,768 posts)I'm hoping a few Republicans will feel some measure of guilt!
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)Joe Scarborough, former GOP congressman, and MSNBC talking head, repudiated his past top rating by the NRA, and called for their being given the boot!
He pretty thoroughly repudiated everything the NRA stand for or promotes.
young_at_heart
(3,768 posts)How about that great VP, Dick Cheney? Maybe his new heart has given him a "heart".
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)and therefore shame, is not his strong suit.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)They see the writing on the wall; when the NRA becomes unpopular, to the extent they are now, no amount of their bloody money will buy corrupt conservatives. ALEC, which is just another front for illegal NRA lobbying, lost an awful lot of their larger corporate special interest money when the news leaked out about them, some 48 + of them.
They also lost a lot of the conservative politicians they had bought, and of the rats that didn't leave that sinking ship, some of them lost.
That means that like those Republicans abandoning the Grover Norquists sinking ship, the NRA has also begun losing their pet politicians and their voter base too.
This seems to have become a tipping point, not just this, but I suspect the cumulative weight of so many of these mass shootings.
As the news gets out more widely about the two OTHER attempted mass school shootings on Friday, one in IN - another elementary school, and the one in OK, a high school, the awareness that this was nearly a triple mass school shooting is not going to make people any happier with the failure of the gun culture.
The notion that more guns make us safer will finally be done an buried.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Was that the FF's favored a "well regulated militia" over a standing army and proposed to allow citizens access to firearms so that they could participate in such militias.
Logically then if we are going to arm every citizen we should dissolve and defund the American armed forces. And require universal service (all ages, both genders) in local militias.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Thanks for your post. Gun clutching crowd want it both ways.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It was a mistake to federalize the state militias.
How many imperial entanglements would we have avoided if the states had to work in concert militarily?
We should greately reduce our federal armed forces and return to a militia system.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...but that's just me.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)
and the militia system would not have changed our foreign policy.
Having a standing army made it possible to fight WW I and WW II; without it we would not have been as prepared as we were, nor as able to respond as well as we did.
That might be an attitude that makes you feel good, but it is ludicrous for practical application.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)there wouldn't have been a Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, because the Nazis and other Axis powers would have had a very different outcome.
You can't posit a scenario without standing army that was effective in WW II, and then selectively pretend we would have had the same choices available for the later conflicts.
MORE than that, it has always been the foundational premise in this country that there is civilian control of government, including the decisions about where, when and how we engage in military action or involvement.
Militias would not have controlled those decisions, nor does a standing army - nor should they!
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Most of them are secessionists who think that the wrong side won in the "War of Northern Aggression".
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)confirmed that there is a process to secede, that is the essential reverse of the way a state joins -- the same way that there has to be consensus of the state joining, there has to be state consensus for a state to leave after joining.
The damned south took up arms against the lawful government of the United States, which was treason.
They tea baggers can believe any revisionist history they like, but they are wrong.
supercats
(429 posts)Bill Moyers seems to always have it right. He speaks truth to power, and thats why I view him as a national treasure.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)This does not fit under the SoP of the Group. Try GD or Politics 2012.
Regards,
Krispos42, Group Host
krispos42
(49,445 posts)After reconsideration, I've decided to unlock this thread.
-Krispos42, Group Host
