It really is time to nail the NRA into a closet. Why do we let ANY industry front group write our laws? Especially one like the NRA that pushes fear and violence.
I have no problem with people owning guns if there are responsible controls on them. Maybe someday we can have a real country again, one that is responsible to its citizens, not greedy corporations.
dl373: "Now, with that in mind, see if the Second Amendment makes sense to you if it was worded slightly differently, but still with very much the identical meaning and intention"
Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment has specific wording YOU cannot change, and different people still interpret the meaning differently!
A look at the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are appropriate, and tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias.
Both contemporary interpretations are correct, in a way. The amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias, and it was also designed to protect an individual's right to own and bear a gun.
The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different -- it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions.
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right -- but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.
James Madison, is considered by many to be the father of the Constitution, and not without good reason. What is perhaps less well known is his role in the Bill of Rights, but during the Convention, the delegates were mostly set against the inclusion of a bill of rights in the new Constitution.
The drive for a bill of rights in the federal Constitution was strong, however, and one of the main points of the Anti-Federalists. Eventually, Madison, and those on his side, won the debate to create a Bill of Rights, with several of Madison's concepts, if not his exact wording, appearing in the twelve articles of amendment that were sent to the states.
His original wording of the 2nd Amendment is as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
The final version adopted by Congress and ratified by the states was a bit different, though.
I did nothing to change the meaning, I only offered a very slightly different wording. Again, no country/government in history has ever had a problem arming its military, so there is no logical reason to have included an item in the Bill of Rights for that purpose. The government controlling a military is simply given as the reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is a very simple sentence, an explanation as to why it is needed, followed by the actual right that it protects. The explanation as to why is ultimately irrelevant, it is simply a statement of a fact, there is nothing to interpret. And the right, unlike freedom of speech, could not be more absolute than "shall not be infringed." And again, remember that our country was founded by "the people" using their own "arms" to overthrow their government rule. Obviously they wanted to ensure that every future generation would have that same ability if needed. They were never so delusional as to think that our government could never become totally corrupt and no longer have the interests of the people in mind. The entire system is built around checks and balances, and an armed population of the people was meant to always be the ultimate check.
Perhaps you could twist it this way. The right to bear arms is not being infringed if the arms are defined as muskets and black powder. You have the right to own a musket, everything else requires a separate constitutional amendment. You see, since the document was written in a time when nobody could conceive of the industrial revolution and the destructive machinery it spawned, it needs to occasionally be redrafted. Even the founding fathers thought the nation needed to be "rebuilt" every generation, or so.
Senator Feinstein has it right.The weapons used in the Aurora Massacre and the Gabby Giffords shootings were assault rifles.Our military uses similar guns in combat, to rapidly take out large numbers of people.[ In Aurora, 71 people were shot in less than 2 minutes, according to some reports].What good purpose would a civilian have for such a weapon?Such instances as these aside, the U.S. has one of the highest murder rates in the industrialized world.There is a need to balance the rights of citizens to bear arms with the need to protect the public. To say that the perpetrators of such acts would just buy guns on the black market, illegally ( as some say), or find other ways of carrying out their deeds, as Governor Hickenlooper says,if there were more regulations, may have some merit; but is defeatist.We need some sensible restrictions.We may not be able to stop these crimes altogether, but if we ban assault weapons, and enforce existing laws;it will make it more difficult for them to be carried out.
Actually, the Tucson shooter had a semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine, not an assault rifle, but both the AR-15, 100-round drum magazine and the 30-round extended pistol magazine were illegal to buy from 1994 to 2004 under the assault weapons ban.
First of all, you probably have little understanding of what the made up term assault weapon means. The military has guns that can be switched to fully automatic, but civilians cannot own those. Any civilian so-called assault weapon is simply a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty such rifles that are perfectly legitimate to use for hunting and competition shooting, and all are legitimate for target shooting and self defense.
And apparently you do not remember the Los Angeles riots where multiple law abiding store owners were successfully defending their lives and property using these so-called assault weapons that according to your small way of thinking have no use...
To blame guns, or our current gun laws, for the Colorado shootings is extremely ignorant. This was one, obviously unstable, individual who did something terrible. That is all. It happens once in awhile. It is unfortunately human nature that some people develop the sick need to harm others. Humans have been killing each other for thousands of years, since long before guns existed. It is nothing new, and it will never stop happening.
If instead of using guns, what if this wacko drove a vehicle at high speed into a large crowd of people standing outside the entrance to a movie theater while they were waiting to get in? That could easily kill just as many people, if not more. But would you propose banning vehicles? Probably not, because, as logic dictates, it was not because of the car, it was because of the actions of one deranged person misusing an otherwise useful, and not inherently dangerous on its own, object. But, because so many people are so simple minded and live in their own little dream world, they cannot see the hypocrisy in calling to ban guns, but not vehicles. While on this subject, more completely innocent people are killed every day by careless, drunk, or incompetent drivers than by people with guns. So, there is even more reason to ban vehicles, but again, it is illogical to ban something useful because of the poor actions of a few. To counter this, you will probably say that far more people are exposed to the risk of a vehicle accident than being shot, but in reality, you are most likely around armed people all the time when you are out in public, but you just don't know it, that is why it is called concealed carry.
The right for every American to defend one's self is a cornerstone of the American way of life and the freedoms that we enjoy. Every single one of us is a potential victim of an assault. Maybe some of you don't mind knowing that if you, or a loved one, were about to become one of those victims, that you would be stuck just watching and waiting as you are, or your loved one is, assaulted, robbed, raped, murdered, or whatever, but some of us chose to exercise our right to be able to prevent that from happening. You are the only defense against someone who is going to assault you; you only get to call the police after the fact, if you're still alive. Every year there are numerous people who use their guns to avoid becoming a victim. To those of you who want to ban guns and take away that right, you should go face to face with every woman who has ever avoided being raped because she was armed and say, "I am sorry, but you should have had to endure being raped, because my false sense of security is more important." Idiotic gun control proponents never want to look at the big picture though, like typical good liberals, they look at one specific thing and think that due to their (non-existent) superior intellect, they have all the answers.
And as far as the typical liberal's interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is laughable. Do you really think that it was written to protect the right of the government controlled military powers to have arms? Really? When in history has any country/government had that problem? But, besides that, all you need to do is actually read it with just a small sliver of English comprehension, and consider who wrote it and when they wrote it, and you will clearly see the true meaning and intention. First of all, you have to remember that our country was founded by people who took up their own arms to fight, overthrow, and split from, their corrupt government. Now, with that in mind, see if the Second Amendment makes sense to you if it was worded slightly differently, but still with very much the identical meaning and intention:
Because the government must regulate a military to ensure its security, the right of the people to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.
It does not say the right of the militia, or the right of militia members, it says "the right of the people". It does not get any more clear than that. The right to hunt, the right to target shoot, and the right to defend yourself, were all considered inherent rights by our founding fathers. The Second Amendment was meant to protect all of those rights, but even beyond just those rights, to ensure that the people of this country would always be able to overthrow a corrupt government, by force if needed, just as they just had to do. If you do not understand this, I am sorry that you are slow and cannot read and comprehend the English language...
Thanks for the rhetoric Mr. NRA. With the lax gun laws in place and the prevention of sensible laws concerning guns and gun ownership by the NRA, guns are getting into the hands of too many of those who should not be allowed to own a gun.
I, like most Americans do not want to ban guns or their ownership by American Citizens but the extreme right gun lobbying groups only care about gun proliferation at any cost. The NRA, their lobbyists, supported polititions and cronies should be run out of Washinton DC so that sensible gun laws can be put into place.
Maybe it time we get our kids of meth and all the hard core drugs that is destroying our country, legalize pot( a plant ). Maybe offer a little more then debt. to go to school.You all call us the unforgiven bah What have you done !!!! Greed makes me sick . You all talk down about the insane ,their is a reason they are like that you all still playing the game.I walk around and i feel like events that are taking place today has happened before.I am sick of this story , I want change!!!
what a bunch of bs ,I smell cival war if thangs dont change soon, start freeing ppl. that are sitting in prison for stupid laws like smoking or growing pot.Ohh but abortion is legal .Maybe this country needs to start putting these sleazbags in dc in jail.This country seems so back ass ward.Its a time we change thangs or go to war .You dont even treat our vet right when they come home ,they fight a war and come home to be spit .Land of the free , maybe if we start teaching morals to our youth instead of playing these games.I know this is not the first time i have lived, **** i dont need a ******* gun to kill,(i have never hurt or killed anyone yet to this date ).People are sueing ppl. for nothang anymore give me a break.Jobs be out sourced to other countrys when we have all these homless and starving ppl. in this country.And you wonder why their are ppl out their like this.Thats right ppl. not guns ppl.
the US Constitution does not give a citizen the right to bears guns, it says you have the right "to bear arms", so i think we should allow Americans to have shoulder fired missles, nuclear arms, etc, and anyone who says otherwise is anti-American, also having widespread access of nuclear wepons would solve a lot of problems right away
Bloomberg was right. It's up to the candidates to take the lead on this. Congress has been impotent since Obama took office. There are no leaders in Congress. We are adrift, allowing assault weapons in movie theaters and politicians rationalizing that the fact he had an assault weapon made no difference. They are not leaders; they simply don't want to get on the wrong side of the Tea Party. Can no one stand up and speak the truth? Assault weapons need to be banned!
Assault Rifles are not for hunting, a 100 round magazine is not necessary. We used to have rational bans on assault rifles, but those expired. We need to find out who allowed them to expire and how much pressure they got from the NRA.
The UN overlords would like nothing more than to have a weakly armed population. If everyone has .22 caliber rifles (or none at all) it would be easy to roll in with machine guns and take over. The founding Fathers of this country saw guns as a way to fight against tyranny. They didn't say "except for these guns" or "not including those". They just said "arms". They knew that if the population was armed then the government could never get as powerful as England was in 1776. They knew that the only way to keep the government from becoming too powerful would be to make sure that the citizens were armed and fully in control.
RDoyle35.....do you really believe that ANY country in the world would send their army over here and invade the United States ? The tyranny you speak of was over 200 years ago.
The only thing that would be different tonight if a ban on firearms was in place, is that 12 people in Aurora, Colorado would be alive....and the NRA would be speed dialing their lap dogs up on The Hill demanding answers.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
I have no problem with people owning guns if there are responsible controls on them. Maybe someday we can have a real country again, one that is responsible to its citizens, not greedy corporations.
Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment has specific wording YOU cannot change, and different people still interpret the meaning differently!
A look at the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are appropriate, and tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias.
Both contemporary interpretations are correct, in a way. The amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias, and it was also designed to protect an individual's right to own and bear a gun.
The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different -- it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions.
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right -- but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.
The drive for a bill of rights in the federal Constitution was strong, however, and one of the main points of the Anti-Federalists. Eventually, Madison, and those on his side, won the debate to create a Bill of Rights, with several of Madison's concepts, if not his exact wording, appearing in the twelve articles of amendment that were sent to the states.
His original wording of the 2nd Amendment is as follows:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
The final version adopted by Congress and ratified by the states was a bit different, though.
And apparently you do not remember the Los Angeles riots where multiple law abiding store owners were successfully defending their lives and property using these so-called assault weapons that according to your small way of thinking have no use...
If instead of using guns, what if this wacko drove a vehicle at high speed into a large crowd of people standing outside the entrance to a movie theater while they were waiting to get in? That could easily kill just as many people, if not more. But would you propose banning vehicles? Probably not, because, as logic dictates, it was not because of the car, it was because of the actions of one deranged person misusing an otherwise useful, and not inherently dangerous on its own, object. But, because so many people are so simple minded and live in their own little dream world, they cannot see the hypocrisy in calling to ban guns, but not vehicles. While on this subject, more completely innocent people are killed every day by careless, drunk, or incompetent drivers than by people with guns. So, there is even more reason to ban vehicles, but again, it is illogical to ban something useful because of the poor actions of a few. To counter this, you will probably say that far more people are exposed to the risk of a vehicle accident than being shot, but in reality, you are most likely around armed people all the time when you are out in public, but you just don't know it, that is why it is called concealed carry.
The right for every American to defend one's self is a cornerstone of the American way of life and the freedoms that we enjoy. Every single one of us is a potential victim of an assault. Maybe some of you don't mind knowing that if you, or a loved one, were about to become one of those victims, that you would be stuck just watching and waiting as you are, or your loved one is, assaulted, robbed, raped, murdered, or whatever, but some of us chose to exercise our right to be able to prevent that from happening. You are the only defense against someone who is going to assault you; you only get to call the police after the fact, if you're still alive. Every year there are numerous people who use their guns to avoid becoming a victim. To those of you who want to ban guns and take away that right, you should go face to face with every woman who has ever avoided being raped because she was armed and say, "I am sorry, but you should have had to endure being raped, because my false sense of security is more important." Idiotic gun control proponents never want to look at the big picture though, like typical good liberals, they look at one specific thing and think that due to their (non-existent) superior intellect, they have all the answers.
And as far as the typical liberal's interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is laughable. Do you really think that it was written to protect the right of the government controlled military powers to have arms? Really? When in history has any country/government had that problem? But, besides that, all you need to do is actually read it with just a small sliver of English comprehension, and consider who wrote it and when they wrote it, and you will clearly see the true meaning and intention. First of all, you have to remember that our country was founded by people who took up their own arms to fight, overthrow, and split from, their corrupt government. Now, with that in mind, see if the Second Amendment makes sense to you if it was worded slightly differently, but still with very much the identical meaning and intention:
Because the government must regulate a military to ensure its security, the right of the people to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.
It does not say the right of the militia, or the right of militia members, it says "the right of the people". It does not get any more clear than that. The right to hunt, the right to target shoot, and the right to defend yourself, were all considered inherent rights by our founding fathers. The Second Amendment was meant to protect all of those rights, but even beyond just those rights, to ensure that the people of this country would always be able to overthrow a corrupt government, by force if needed, just as they just had to do. If you do not understand this, I am sorry that you are slow and cannot read and comprehend the English language...
With the lax gun laws in place and the prevention of sensible laws concerning guns and gun ownership by the NRA, guns are getting into the hands of too many of those who should not be allowed to own a gun.
I, like most Americans do not want to ban guns or their ownership by American Citizens but the extreme right gun lobbying groups only care about gun proliferation at any cost.
The NRA, their lobbyists, supported polititions and cronies should be run out of Washinton DC so that sensible gun laws can be put into place.
The only thing that would be different tonight if a ban on firearms was in place, is that 12 people in Aurora, Colorado would be alive....and the NRA would be speed dialing their lap dogs up on The Hill demanding answers.