How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

Taichiliberal said:
and here is a MAJOR flaw in the logic you use for all your screeds. Note the following in which you quoted: "
In Parade, Burger states that there is an unquestioned right for Americans to defend their homes with firearms; that such a right, "need not be challenged". He continues that, "the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game," in the same fashion that no one could, "challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing . . . ."

Burger goes on to tell us what types of guns are protected by the Constitution; "To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles."

So, Burger does admit that the express constitutional mention of [the right of the people to] "keep and bear arms" guarantees private citizens (not connected to any militia nor acting under militia orders) a constitutional right to own guns for home defense and a right to own hunting guns."

your quote deals specifically with hunting rifles...he was NOT talking about weapons like assault rifles or various handguns that are NOT designed for hunting. I say this in reference to Burgers statements regarding weapons that DUE need regulation. YOU distort what he says as some sort of parallel to the interpretation used by all gunners (NRA pundits and the like) that the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee that you can have whatever type of gun, as many as you like, carry any and every where you please without any type of regulation from gov't (state or federal). remember that there were VERY SPECIFIC RULES for forming a state militia as to type of weapons, ammo, stock, etc. (See subsequent Militia Acts). So by your own train of thought...hunting rifles are the ONLY weapons the 2nd Amendment guarantees, as Burger points out.


When all is said and done, the carrying on about what preceded the final draft and legalization of the 2nd amendment is good for shooting the breeze, but does NOT change the FACT that while Americans have the right to purchase a weapon, they do NOT have the right to military style weapons, as many are NOT forming a militia. You STILL have federally recognized state militias in America. They are well regulated. You have law abiding Americans owning weapons under various state laws with some federal regulation. Additional licensing and registration (as Burger suggested) would not eliminate home grown terrorists, gangsters and general madmen, but it would help in reducing who can criminally obtain a weapon, as guns could be more easily traced, and the black market would become more expensive, thus having less customers.
Click to expand...

I'll dumb it down for you and keep it short.....

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
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......1791


In 1791, THE PEOPLE made up the militia....as it was then, it is today....we the people are still 'the militia'......it was framed as it was, because it was written
in 1791 not 2015

the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting for recreation, and everything to do with self defense. Self defense of our persons, our property,
our family's and our country......it didn't then and it doesn't now, limit the number of or the kind of arms we bear......and it was this way for over 200 years until
today's liberals have seen fit to try to take this particular right away....for such bogus reasons as Islamic terrorism and a few insane citizens.....

Arms meant personal weapons, not military tanks or RPG's or WMD or biological weapons, or battleships or bombers etc.....but certainly not limited to muskets and swords....


Its akin to taking our right to drive a car away because of a few drunk drivers.....and please don't tell me we have no constitutional right to drive, the analogy stands.



​
 
Last edited:
Abatis said:
My arguments are grounded solidly in the foundational principles and actual action of the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Please quote specifically what you believe to be untrue or mere conjecture.



Burger's quotes are of zero consequence. Those are not the words of a sitting justice writing for the majority. He's John Q Citizen writing an opinion piece in a magazine. Just like Justice Stevens' "five words", it has no weight, it serves no legal purpose except to expose the vapidness of leftist wishful thinking, pining for how they want things to be.



Anyone who reads the 2nd Amendment and interprets conditions and qualifications and restrictions on the right is acting in direct opposition to 140 years of Supreme Court direction on what the 2nd means. Since the right to arms is a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT and is not granted / given / created / established by the words of the 2nd Amendment, that means the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. THAT also means that a citizen's right to arms can not be said to be contingent upon his attachment to a structure that is itself entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (that being the organized state militias). You are arguing constitutional gibberish and nonsense.



Huh? Where did I do that. I clearly state that if one wants to apply the militia purpose to the protection sphere of the 2nd Amendment, ONLY MILITARY TYPE ARMS can be said to be protected. Hunting [sporting] arms are protected only as far as they can be demonstrated to be useful in warfare and/or in common use by the citizenry.

I realize you would rather eat fire ants than understand that the primary protection criteria that the Supreme Court uses to determine if the possession and use of a gun by a private citizen is protected by the 2nd is its effectiveness in killing people, not animals. Close the ThinkProgress window and read US v Miller will ya!




Ya got anything to back that foolishness up besides some Thom Hartmann or Bloomberg propaganda?



Sez the guy who can't quote any specific point to challenge, can't offer a single verifiable citation to support his arguments but instead just dismisses everything.
Click to expand...

See folks, Abatis just keeps regurgitating his personal opinion, supposition and conjecture as if they are FACTS to counter what I reference and post. That he cannot logically or factually disprove the CONTENT of the sites I link is proof of his disingenuous position. His lies that I don't give specific documentation to support what I say are shown by the chronology of the posts. Now let's watch him parrot the same old dreck ad nausea.
 
Abatis said:
Please cite the historical facts and/or law that contradicts me or explain my misinterpretation, just one specific instance should be easy . . . .

Remind me, wasn't christiefan the person who asked for rebuttals and then begged off addressing them?

Where the hell did he score a single point in his non-debate with me?
Click to expand...

I did...you just dismissed the sites contents, remember? And Christie has documented time and again where you are wrong. You're just insipidly stubborn and hope that folk don't click the little arrow to review what has transpired.
 
NOVA said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
and here is a MAJOR flaw in the logic you use for all your screeds. Note the following in which you quoted: "
In Parade, Burger states that there is an unquestioned right for Americans to defend their homes with firearms; that such a right, "need not be challenged". He continues that, "the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game," in the same fashion that no one could, "challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing . . . ."

Burger goes on to tell us what types of guns are protected by the Constitution; "To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles."

So, Burger does admit that the express constitutional mention of [the right of the people to] "keep and bear arms" guarantees private citizens (not connected to any militia nor acting under militia orders) a constitutional right to own guns for home defense and a right to own hunting guns."

your quote deals specifically with hunting rifles...he was NOT talking about weapons like assault rifles or various handguns that are NOT designed for hunting. I say this in reference to Burgers statements regarding weapons that DUE need regulation. YOU distort what he says as some sort of parallel to the interpretation used by all gunners (NRA pundits and the like) that the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee that you can have whatever type of gun, as many as you like, carry any and every where you please without any type of regulation from gov't (state or federal). remember that there were VERY SPECIFIC RULES for forming a state militia as to type of weapons, ammo, stock, etc. (See subsequent Militia Acts). So by your own train of thought...hunting rifles are the ONLY weapons the 2nd Amendment guarantees, as Burger points out.


When all is said and done, the carrying on about what preceded the final draft and legalization of the 2nd amendment is good for shooting the breeze, but does NOT change the FACT that while Americans have the right to purchase a weapon, they do NOT have the right to military style weapons, as many are NOT forming a militia. You STILL have federally recognized state militias in America. They are well regulated. You have law abiding Americans owning weapons under various state laws with some federal regulation. Additional licensing and registration (as Burger suggested) would not eliminate home grown terrorists, gangsters and general madmen, but it would help in reducing who can criminally obtain a weapon, as guns could be more easily traced, and the black market would become more expensive, thus having less customers.
Click to expand...


I'll dumb it down for you and keep it short.....

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
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......1791


In 1791, THE PEOPLE made up the militia....as it was then, it is today....we the people are still 'the militia'......it was framed as it was, because it was written
in 1791 not 2015

the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting for recreation, and everything to do with self defense. Self defense of our persons, our property,
our family's and our country......it didn't then and it doesn't now, limit the number of or the kind of arms we bear......and it was this way for over 200 years until
today's liberals have seen fit to try to take this particular right away....for such bogus reasons as Islamic terrorism and a few insane citizens.....

Arms meant personal weapons, not military tanks or RPG's or WMD or biological weapons, or battleships or bombers etc.....but certainly not limited to muskets and swords....


Its akin to taking our right to drive a car away because of a few drunk drivers.....and please don't tell me we have no constitutional right to drive, the analogy stands.



​
Click to expand...

people still make up the militia, you stupe. But, they have to be WELL REGULATED in order to be considered a militia. Otherwise, any group of stupes can grab a gun and call themselves a militia. Got that?

Once again, your revisionism blathering does NOT supplant historical fact and precedent.
 
Taichiliberal said:
See folks, Abatis just keeps regurgitating his personal opinion, supposition and conjecture as if they are FACTS to counter what I reference and post.
Click to expand...

At least my posts quote and cite Court opinions and use approved commentary (by SCOTUS) like the Federalist Papers. I've asked you repeatedly for specific points that you feel are unsupported conjecture and supposition and you just continue with blanket accusations and dismissal. Please, just one quote and lay out why you think I'm wrong.

Taichiliberal said:
That he cannot logically or factually disprove the CONTENT of the sites I link is proof of his disingenuous position.
Click to expand...

What sites have you linked to me?
Your rants have been bald claims with zero supported argument.
Do you really expect me to disprove "CONTENT" that you have not provided?

Taichiliberal said:
His lies that I don't give specific documentation to support what I say are shown by the chronology of the posts.
Click to expand...

What Court case have you quoted to support your bald claims?
You are the champion of personal opinion, supposition and conjecture as a weak substitute for reasoned, supported argument.
Just once don't quote my whole post and deride it . . . For once snip it down to a sentence or a point that you think is unsupported.

Taichiliberal said:
Now let's watch him parrot the same old dreck ad nausea.
Click to expand...

It is clear that you can not understand what I write; asking you to actually rebut it is like asking someone to describe a milkshake to the Maya . . .

At least christiefan knew to just bow out.
 
Can anyone here tear this statement apart and prove where I'm factually and/or legally incorrect?



Anyone who reads the 2nd Amendment and interprets conditions and qualifications and restrictions on the right to arms is acting in direct opposition to 140 years of Supreme Court direction on what the 2nd means. Since the right to arms is a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT and is not granted / given / created / established by the words of the 2nd Amendment, that means the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. THAT also means that a citizen's right to arms can not be said to be contingent upon his attachment to a structure that is itself entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (that being the organized state militias).​
 
Taichiliberal said:
people still make up the militia, you stupe. But, they have to be WELL REGULATED in order to be considered a militia. Otherwise, any group of stupes can grab a gun and call themselves a militia. Got that?

Once again, your revisionism blathering does NOT supplant historical fact and precedent.
Click to expand...

tell us, idiot, how does one become 'well regulated' when states have outlawed the military training and socialization that it takes to become 'well regulated'??????
 
SmarterthanYou said:
tell us, idiot, how does one become 'well regulated' when states have outlawed the military training and socialization that it takes to become 'well regulated'??????
Click to expand...

Actually it's the fed's (SCOTUS) enforcing state law, see Presser v US and the circumstance that no Art I Sec 8, cl 16 militias exist anymore (extinguished by Congress in 1903 ).

I would just like to see any anti-gunner provide any support for either the statement that the people, "have to be WELL REGULATED in order to be considered a militia" or the position that flows from that, that only "well regulated militia" have the right to arms as recognized and secured in the 2nd Amendment.

And then they have the gall to declare what I write to be just conjecture and supposition even though I am just repeating what the Supreme Court has said.
 
Abatis said:
With the multitude of points that remain ignored by you (that you yourself arrogantly, pompously demanded be provided) now you want to derail your own thread?

How ridiculous . . .
Click to expand...


You're arrogant but not very bright. I said a number of times why I posted the article and it wasn't to argue the points, it was to show how the gun people disagree on the basics. So let's boil it down: why do gun lovers disagree on the basics if it's all so cut and dried?

Maybe you think if you change the topic to what you want it to be nobody will notice. But you're wrong.

"I want the posters who said "this entire article is horseshit" or words to that effect admit that the 2nd didn't go through 2+ centuries of history untouched by controversy."

"Again, this isn't about my mindset. It's about the pro-gun crowd reading the article and refuting it with certifiable facts, not opinion and name-calling. Predictably you defaulted to the latter."

"That is my point, that reasonable people can disagree about a document and its provisions that was written over 225 years ago."

"Apparently you have a problem with comprehension. My reason for posting this thread was in #115. Your positions and those of everyone else who answered the true/false questions were not all
identical. Those who answered are all strong supporters of gun rights so how can it be that their interpretations varied?"
 
christiefan915 said:
So public health means nothing to you, I guess. And the children of anti-vaxxers have to pay for the sins of their parents.
Click to expand...

who do your children belong to? YOU or the state??? this is something that the liberals are going to have to come to terms with and that is that eventually people who value their parental rights over the choices for the children are going to re-assume control of their children. it has zero to do with public safety, for if public safety was paramount, then we'd all be wearing body armor to protect us every minute of every day while we're escorted around by government agents bent on our safety.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
who do your children belong to? YOU or the state??? this is something that the liberals are going to have to come to terms with and that is that eventually people who value their parental rights over the choices for the children are going to re-assume control of their children. it has zero to do with public safety, for if public safety was paramount, then we'd all be wearing body armor to protect us every minute of every day while we're escorted around by government agents bent on our safety.
Click to expand...

Of course all children belong to their parents. And most parents I know would kill for their kids. So it puzzles me that a parent would deny their kids a vaccine just to thumb their noses at the state.

Google a child having an attack of whooping cough. Google the effects of polio. Read up on the symptoms of tetanus and diphtheria. I have no respect for parents who would put their kids at risk for these diseases.

People in Third World countries would kill to have our vaccines and our level of health care for kids. And all you can do is blather on about statism.
 
christiefan915 said:
Of course all children belong to their parents. And most parents I know would kill for their kids. So it puzzles me that a parent would deny their kids a vaccine just to thumb their noses at the state.

Google a child having an attack of whooping cough. Google the effects of polio. Read up on the symptoms of tetanus and diphtheria. I have no respect for parents who would put their kids at risk for these diseases.

People in Third World countries would kill to have our vaccines and our level of health care for kids. And all you can do is blather on about statism.
Click to expand...

emotional argument, devoid of substance. are you the perfect model for parenting?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
emotional argument, devoid of substance. are you the perfect model for parenting?
Click to expand...

So caring about your children's welfare is emotional? Damn straight.

People who deny vaccines not only endanger their own kids but others who come into contact with them. And that is the height of selfishness, which apparently you're good with.
 
christiefan915 said:
So caring about your children's welfare is emotional? Damn straight.

People who deny vaccines not only endanger their own kids but others who come into contact with them. And that is the height of selfishness, which apparently you're good with.
Click to expand...
wrong. the emotional part is trying to induce fear in to others to bend them to your will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top