How the NRA and conservatives have perverted the meaning of the right to bear arms.

christiefan915

Catalyst
Contributor
"...This is where I tell you that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment—the one held onto by Carson, and Donald Trump, and practically the entire Republican Party—is a hoax. Outside of the GOP, this is widely understood. But what we fail to comprehend, as we bury more of our dead in the name of freedom, is that it is a triple-decker hoax: A lie wrapped in a fabrication, lacquered over with a falsehood. That we chose to wrap it around our necks as a symbol of our own liberty is our own fault and shame.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says this: “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.” For most of U.S. history, that was understood to mean that the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment was precisely what it said: the right of the people of each state to maintain a well-regulated militia.

So clearly and unequivocally held was this worldview that no less a liberal squish than Richard Nixon Supreme Court appointee Warren Burger said after his retirement in 1991 that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” This reading was based on precedent. The Supreme Court had clearly agreed with Burger’s interpretation and not that of the special interest groups he chastised...

What changed? As Cass Sunstein and others have explained, what changed things was a decades-long effort by exceptionally well-organized, well-funded interest groups that included the National Rifle Association—all of whom “embarked on an extraordinary campaign to convince the public, and eventually the courts, to understand the Second Amendment in their preferred way.” It’s rather miraculous, if you stop to think about it: In a few short decades the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment became the law of the land.

But that is only the crunchy bottom layer of the fraud. The larger fabrication is the idea that the Second Amendment—unlike other provisions of the Constitution—cannot be subject to any reasonable restriction. We have the constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble, but not to block traffic. We are protected from unreasonable and unwarranted searches, unless there is probable cause, exigent circumstances, or a hot pursuit. If charged with a crime, we have the right to a speedy trial (but not if the prosecution is hunting down witnesses) and also a public one (but not if you want your trial televised). We also have the right to a trial by jury (unless the crime carries a sentences of six months or less).

The second hoax—that the right to bear arms is not merely an individual right but also that it is the only constitutional right subject to zero regulation—makes no sense on its face, until and unless you are willing to fall prey to the third fraud.

Hoax number three: Obama, Clinton, Democrats, liberals, the media, whomever are coming for your guns. They are Coming. For your Guns!!! This is the crunchy candy shell that makes the other two lies seem almost reasonable. Of course you should have an inviolate individual right to defend yourself against a tyrannical federal government if you have persuaded yourself that the federal government is indeed tyrannical. This is the big lie that continues to be broadcast and pushed out ad nauseam, and no amount of fact-checking or direct confrontation with accusers makes a whit of difference. The NRA wanted us to feel that only our guns would make us free, and they have prevailed...

It is a sick joke of our democracy that after every mass shooting we must tell our children that the Framers gave us this precious gift of liberty, more valuable than their lives, and that we are stuck with it. This is the opposite of freedom. It is slavery by choice.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rverted_the_meaning_of_the_2nd_amendment.html
 
Being lazy here and not reading but no disrespect to the article. Is there a new spin on the 2nd amendment in this we haven't heard before?
 
Being lazy here and not reading but no disrespect to the article. Is there a new spin on the 2nd amendment in this we haven't heard before?

I don't know what everybody else has heard before but this is the paragraph that really makes sense to me:

"The larger fabrication is the idea that the Second Amendment—unlike other provisions of the Constitution—cannot be subject to any reasonable restriction. We have the constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble, but not to block traffic. We are protected from unreasonable and unwarranted searches, unless there is probable cause, exigent circumstances, or a hot pursuit. If charged with a crime, we have the right to a speedy trial (but not if the prosecution is hunting down witnesses) and also a public one (but not if you want your trial televised). We also have the right to a trial by jury (unless the crime carries a sentences of six months or less).

The second hoax—that the right to bear arms is not merely an individual right but also that it is the only constitutional right subject to zero regulation—makes no sense on its face, until and unless you are willing to fall prey to the third fraud."
 
I predicted that cons would yawn and say this is nothing new, and I was 100% correct.

I also predicted that they wouldn't read it, and wouldn't be capable of understanding the big words if they had.

Right on both counts.

Too bad Damocles won the debate.

Your narrative fails.

Please, clap.
 
It's an individual right, but it's also subject to regulation so long as the individual right is not impinged by such.
 
SCOTUS disagrees and they are the final arbiter.

The NRA was able to sway SCOTUS.

"The Supreme Court had clearly agreed with Burger’s interpretation and not that of the special interest groups he chastised, perhaps most famously in a 1939 case called U.S. v. Miller. That ruling said that since the possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” had no reasonable relationship to the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” the court simply could not find that the Second Amendment guaranteed “the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Period, full stop. And that was the viewpoint adopted by the courts for years.

What changed? As Cass Sunstein and others have explained, what changed things was a decades-long effort by exceptionally well-organized, well-funded interest groups that included the National Rifle Association—all of whom “embarked on an extraordinary campaign to convince the public, and eventually the courts, to understand the Second Amendment in their preferred way.” It’s rather miraculous, if you stop to think about it: In a few short decades the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment became the law of the land."
 
If the newly-appointed and confirmed SCOTUS reverses the "individual right", then the cons will revert to calling them "black-robed tyrants" and issue millions of idle threats, while they meekly submit, as usual.
 
Is that right, are you able to possess any and all military guns that you wish? Does the SCOTUS allow you to own any weapon that you wish?

The SCOTUS doesn't allow me the constitution does by virtue of seeing that the rest of the government cannot abridge it.
What military gun can I not own ?
 
13428006_10154001371579760_3600608509651249648_n.jpg
 
The SCOTUS doesn't allow me the constitution does by virtue of seeing that the rest of the government cannot abridge it.
What military gun can I not own ?

I believe fully automated machine guns are illegal to own if made after 1986, they are at least very highly regulated and require licensing to own one.
 
I believe fully automated machine guns are illegal to own if made after 1986, they are at least very highly regulated and require licensing to own one.

You need to study up. Title II weapons are perfectly legal to own with the correct permits.

No mass killing has ever been perpetrated by the holder of a permit.

Your narrative fails.

Damocles win another debate!
 
You need to study up. Title II weapons are perfectly legal to own with the correct permits.

No mass killing has ever been perpetrated by the holder of a permit.

Your narrative fails.

Damocles win another debate!
Clearly a debating genius.
How does he do it?
Please clap Jeb.

giphy.gif
 
Back
Top