Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
These kids need to also scream at all the adults who are voting for politicians bought with NRA money (a.k.a. the GOP). It is common knowledge that the NRA's read on Amendment II is an egregious fraud designed only to allow NRA folks to sell their lethal products. The few wingnuts who graduated High School know this is the truth but obviously cannot admit it to themselves.
The whole gun lobby has ZERO to do with anyone's "rights". Nowhere does our constitution guarantee the right to buy and own any manufactured market product (gun), and nowhere does the Constitution ever mention "guns". A "well-organized militia" of the people that ensures the "security of the free State", however, is specifically mentioned.
Believe me, the very smart Framers were not envisioning a "well-organized militia" made up of misled, ignorant, untrained, trigger-happy hayseeds who merely wander around shooting things that knock a chip from their shoulder. They were also not envisioning the armament of reactionary dolts who wrap themselves in the traitor's flag (confederate) and proclaim their holy right to shoot brown people (and indigent whites). It was not a dumb, self-armed redneck rabble playing weekend cowboy which repelled an invading British Army. It was a well-organized militia raised specifically for the purpose, and that is clearly what Ammendment II is all about.
The government's specially designed protection of gun products is also an illegal intrusion into the free market. What about all the other manufactured weapons that are not guns and do not get this protected endorsement from the government? Why do guns get a special favored endorsement from the government over spears, arrows, daggers, swords, slings and everyone's favorite murder weapon, the car? What about the magic market free hand that creates ultimate goodness? The NRA and its toadies have you believe that guns are the only salable product in existence that the Framers gave a personal endorsement, even though they never once mentioned "guns" or anyone's individual right to "carry guns". Your choice to believe that.
That the Left doesn't merely tolerate but encourages such vapid stupidities contributes substantially to why nothing meaningful gets done.
Get back to class you conflating, hyperbolic morons.
Also, I think it bears stating that the Supreme Court has disagreed with your personal interpretation of the document on more than one occasion. But, it is your choice to believe that the amendment has nothing to do with guns.
It should also be mentioned that despite your insistence, spears, arrows, daggers, swords, slings, and cars are all quite legal, and less regulated than guns. Perhaps gun rights need more defending because there are numerous groups set up solely to restrict the second amendment.
Let me know when people are willing to pony up all the cash required for a "grassroots" movement to ban certain spears and cars, and we can see how much people are willing to defend spear and car rights as well.
They meant single-shot, muzzle-loaded long rifles and pistols and cutting edged weapons such as sabers and cutlasses, pikes, halberds, and what-not, and I suppose bows and arrows, those being the only "arms" (excepting cannons) in existence when the Amendment was written.
And no, the 2nd Amendment was specifically written to protect the right of citizens to bear arms in service to the State - in this case the actual states - that's why the "well-regulated militia" language was given primacy in the declaration of the right - to ensure states had access to a ready, able contingent of citizen-soldiers, there being no established standing national army at the time.
And I call bullshit on your assertion that those other items are "less regulated than guns" - automobiles are far more heavily regulated (requiring verification of training, licensing, and proof of insurance just to operate, not to mention all the regulations imposed to ensure motor vehicles operate in a safe manner); as for those other items, well, when was the last time you heard of a mass-killing being carried out by someone with a bow-and-arrow? People don't use those things to commit mass-slaughter for the very simple reason that they tend to be not terribly effective when the goal is to kill and injure as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, particularly not when there is a much more efficient means of doing so more readily available and for very little cost.
Hell, the act of buying a puppy is literally more heavily regulated than is the purchase of a firearm in this country...
Nowhere does the above sentence appear in the US Constitution, or anywhere in Amendment II, or any Amendment II opinion ever written by any court. Nor does it appear in any writings from the founding fathers. That is just your uniformed bullshit opinion derived from the huge veiny NRA cock you are sucking.
As to your other words, the Supreme Court reversed its original position on gun control (United States v. Miller 1939) when the NRA began lobbying (50's, 60's) for the right to sell military-grade arms around the world. By ginning up a false reading of Amendment II using well-paid special interest lobby, NRA were able to buy political influence all the way to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court then essentially gives the US Government stamp of protection on their product with this bogus interpretation. Scalia was particularly partial to framing his personal (and wingnut) opinions as having something to do with the constitution.
Yeah, the word "freedom" plays well for the riff-raff who buy a few pieces here and there, but the only freedom the NRA is concerned about is their freedom to export their wares to the highest bidder in any world market. Once you sieze on the GOVERNEMNET SANCTIONED RIGHT to manufacture WMD legally, the products sell themselves. For any one that ends up in Wingnut Christian School-Shooter's hands there are hundreds landing into the hands of conscripted child soldiers in Africa.
The fuck you talking about, dipshit?
As for your minority opinion about the 2nd amendment, I will say the same thing as I did to the other guy: the Supreme Court, laws, and popular opinion disagree, but you have a right to your personal interpretation.
@6: Do you also believe all the other amendments are for protection from the British? Of course not, because that would be really fucking stupid. But of course just this one is. The framers were very clear that the document was for protecting the individual (whose very existence, not a governing body, is the basis of their rights), from a tyrannical government both internal or external.
@7: The 2nd amendment. Do try to keep up.
In order to purchase a car (at least if you want to actually drive it, you know, the reason the car exists in the first place?) you need a whole bunch of things, which you duly note. But, I can go out, right this very moment and connect with some stranger I found on Craig's List - or better yet the a "dark web" site like the-armory.com - meet him (it's ALWAYS a him) in a vacant parking lot, hand him cash and - viola! I'm a gun owner! No questions asked! No criminal background check! No waiting period! No - well, none of the things you inferred are "required under the law." And the really weird part is that in most states that's perfectly legal.
And don't even start with "laws to ensure firearms aren't used improperly". How many articles does one need to read about toddlers shooting themselves or others because some eejit left their Glock sitting in the car seat or under the sofa cushions? Or the school teacher (a trained police reservist BTW) who just injured three students while demonstrating the "safe operation" of a firearm? It's a red herring argument, and not a very good one at that.
As for SCOTUS rulings, well, as we all know, they are subject to human capriciousness and frailty - you remember the Dred Scott Decision? A little before your time, but still, noteworthy for being a major fuck-up by the old guys sitting on the bench at the time. And we have all sorts of laws currently on the books that limit the "rights" of gun owners - that's why BAR's, RPG's, and full-auto rifles aren't available for easy purchase out of the trunk of some skeevy guy's 1993 Buick. And "popular opinion"? Really? A healthy two-thirds of Americans, including many gun owners, support more stringent laws calling for limitations on gun ownership - so, from that I can only conclude that that phrase doesn't actually mean what you think it means.
You also really harm your argument when you point out that there is no regulation for just buying a car and storing in in a garage, but there are plenty of regulations for just doing that with a gun. Thanks for proving my point.
That is also not what a "red herring" is, I never argued for limitless arms ownership, nor did I suggest that any gun control measure is in violation of the 2nd amendment.
I think that is all the stuff that was completely unrelated or flat out wrong. Is that really all you have?
You can BUY random cars from guys in parking lots, but you can't DRIVE them without having proof of licencing, insurance, registration tabs, vehicle inspection, etc., etc. A gun bought from a guy in a parking lot requires exactly none of those things.