TYT: Are You Afraid We Might Shoot You? Good.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

*Pro-gun lobbyist Larry Pratt outlined the role he thinks firearms should play in the U.S. system of checks and balances during a radio interview over the weekend. The executive director of Gun Owners of America told Cincinnati talk show host Bill Cunningham that the media is biased against the Second Amendment because they understand its original intent, reported Right Wing Watch. "Its real purpose is to serve as a restraint on government abuse, and since they want to be involved in government abuse, they kind of take it personally, I think," Pratt said Saturday during an interview on WLW-AM. He also suggested that the constitutional right to bear arms might somehow trump the freedom of speech that journalists enjoy under the First Amendment...* Cenk Uygur, John Iadarola (TYT University and Common Room), Eboni K. Williams (attorney and radio host), and Ben Mankiewicz (What The Flick?! and TYT Sports) break it down on The Young Turks.

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Is Mr. Pratt related to Sarah Palin?

Just wondering.

[phantom power]

2. Always assume conservatives are projecting.

I can't remember the last time that assumption failed.

[Oilwellian]

3. Uh, right

Our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to use against the very government they just created. Perhaps this idiot should study the Whiskey Rebellion to learn about it's true intent.

[albino65]

4. 2nd Amendment

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.

I spent 8 1/2 years in the military. The military is well regulated. We had to check out our weapons each day from the armorer, check them back in, and account for each and every round that we were issued. Unless you are in a war zone, or a specific duty that requires it, you did not take your weapon home after duty.

In the event of a national emergency, the militia (citizen army) might be called upon to defend the United States. This is much like the national guard. The entity that would call upon this militia is the federal government. My copy of the constitution does not have any footnotes or notes in the margin that indicate that these weapons are meant to be turned on the government or the media. The militia is meant to be regulated, so then weapons should be registered, and kept track of. Part of regulation is training. Then all these gun owners (militia) should go to boot camp, and be subject to recall in service the the United States government. Also, the military has a human reliability program that tries to screen out people who might be unstable. They do not get to serve, and they do not get weapons.

Along with rights goes responsibility. If you obey the rules and enlist in the citizens' militia, then you can have a gun and will not be infringed upon. If you don't, then get a monster pickup truck with dualies, go to Hooters, or buy some Viagra to compensate for your shortcomings. Just don't get a gun.

[geckosfeet]

7. The 2A is two separate ideas.

The first is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This essentially provides for states/the country to maintain a standing or quickly assembled defense militia. Also note that although it is common to see it, there is no comma after the word Militia:

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.

It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory.1 Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller2 confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment,3 an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase "keep and bear Arms" often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the Court found that the phrase "well regulated Militia" referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of "able-bodied men" who were available for conscription. Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

CRS ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION

The second idea is that the peoples right to have and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[albino65]

8. Baffling bullshit

As in the cases of Citizens United and the roll back of the civil rights act. the supreme court is wrong. You can always find someone who will defend a point of view and sound profound while they are doing it. In my mind the supreme court ruling is a result of a powerful lobby of gun nuts, and promises of lucrative speaking engagements to come. The justices affirming the case of The District of Columbia vs. Heller were the usual suspects: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy.

I do not have an issue with ownership of guns. I think that they should be well regulated as well as their owners. There is no good argument for owning assault weapons or firearms with large capacity magazines.

The fact remains that the use of prefatory remarks are well known in philosophy and used to explain difficult concepts to common minds. If you want to annotate the 2nd amendment then read: BECAUSE A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, THEN the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

i.e. Descartes: I think, therefore I am.

[geckosfeet]

10. you added your own language to an amendment that has undergone academic and judicial

scrutiny for 200 years.

The 2A does not address types of or limits of the rights of the people. In fact it explicitly says that their rights shall not be infinged.

I am not sure how you find that difficult to understand.

[albino65]

11. I did not intend to add my own language

I merely inserted implied words that go along with prefatory remarks to enhance understanding for a difficult concept. You can get as much judicial scrutiny as you like. As far as academic scrutiny, you have to pick and choose your academicians to find that consensus. The fact remains that the United States is as backward as any third world country when it comes to gun policy.

I do not intend to argue with a gun nut.

[geckosfeet]

12. Good.

[zebonaut]

5. Heres the _real "Wild West"

Republican Party will go extinct when the Dems win the next election. They will be a footnote in History.

[rock]

6. That's right law enforcement is scared that you might shoot at them

Oh, I forgot, they've even bigger gun freaks than you. They will be glad to have an excuse to fire every round they have at you!