• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

Rucker61 said:
If the collective view of the 2nd Amendment is the correct one, then NFA 1934 violates the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

The word "collective" has an interesting connotation politically. Having said that, the 1936 Miller decision is a very narrow case and one that actually validates the OP.
 
jet57 said:
The word "collective" has an interesting connotation politically. Having said that, the 1936 Miller decision is a very narrow case and one that actually validates the OP.
Click to expand...

Actually, if the right to bear and bear arms was limited to the militia, Miller, who wasn't in the militia, had no standing and SCOTUS would have dismissed the case on that basis.

Edit: Read BryanVa's post on Article 1 Section 8 and the 2nd Amendment yet? Love to read your response.
 
Rucker61 said:
Explain the decision in Cruikshank and why there was never a law limiting firearms ownership by individuals by the federal government for the first 140 years of our country?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm familiar with the case and I don't see a connection to the OP. The 1934 Miller decision contradicts your thinking, and the supreme court had been ruling on the amendment for at least a generation before that. So what's your point?
 
Rucker61 said:
Actually, if the right to bear and bear arms was limited to the militia, Miller, who wasn't in the militia, had no standing and SCOTUS would have dismissed the case on that basis.
Click to expand...

But the Supreme Court didn't dismiss the Miller case, they ruled against him and in favor of the OP thesis.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Back for another ass beating on the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...

Jet's anti second amendment nonsense is beyond stupid. What we have is someone who wants all Americans to suffer the same idiocy as what he deals with in the idiotic anti gun state of California. Rather than fighting the unconstitutional nonsense imposed by the Democrat party on Californian citizens, Jet adopts the logic of the Aesop fox and wants to spread the misery
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's stick to the topic.
 
jet57 said:
Uh, no thread fail in the least. The NRA is attempting to alter the meaning and purpose of the second amendment and source material validates that. So the NRA has indeed rewritten the amendment to suit its own purposes. And by not reading the OP OR the article, it hardly puts your opinion into a credible category of analysis or commentary.
Click to expand...

remind us of where in Article One, Section 8, the federal government was delegated any power to restrict what firearms private citizens can keep and bear, own and possess?


I will save you some time-there isn't any. its a power that FDR dreamed up. Until the FDR regime, no one thought the federal government had any such power and thus NO ONE TRIED TO REWRITE THE SECOND AMENDMENT so as to allow the FDR excrement to survive a court test
 
Re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

jet57 said:
Well, I'm familiar with the case and I don't see a connection to the OP. The 1934 Miller decision contradicts your thinking, and the supreme court had been ruling on the amendment for at least a generation before that. So what's your point?
Click to expand...

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "

That should suffice.
 
Goshin said:
Not entirely wrong, but not entirely right either. Bear arms is arguably associated with militia service yes, but not always what we'd call military action in modern times.


But in any case the founders were pretty clear in their intent that the rights of the citizenry to possess and lawfully use arms was to be protected.

A few quotes....

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot




In any case, even if there were no 2A, the RKBA of free persons is ancient... the only problem was for most of history few people were "Free".
Click to expand...

Well, first let me say that military action is military action, no matter what year it is. And as I pointed out in the OP, not until the Heller decision did an agenda based reinterpretation of the amendment try and take hold "modernizing"... (read changing the meaning) the amendment. The OP may not subscribe entirely to your own interpretation, but it does have it's point and credibility.
 
jet57 said:
But the Supreme Court didn't dismiss the Miller case, they ruled against him and in favor of the OP thesis.
Click to expand...

That's correct. It wasn't about whether only militia members could possess arms, then, was it?

The majority decision was based on a lie, anyway, as short barreled shotguns do possess traits useful to a militia.
 
jet57 said:
Well, first let me say that military action is military action, no matter what year it is. And as I pointed out in the OP, not until the Heller decision did an agenda based reinterpretation of the amendment try and take hold "modernizing"... (read changing the meaning) the amendment. The OP may not subscribe entirely to your own interpretation, but it does have it's point and credibility.
Click to expand...

can you find ANY statement by ANY founder that suggests that the founders intended something other than an individual right and a BLANKET prohibition on federal action in this area?
 
jet57 said:
Well, first let me say that military action is military action, no matter what year it is. And as I pointed out in the OP, not until the Heller decision did an agenda based reinterpretation of the amendment try and take hold "modernizing"... (read changing the meaning) the amendment. The OP may not subscribe entirely to your own interpretation, but it does have it's point and credibility.
Click to expand...

So prior to Heller, only militia members had the right to own firearms, especially those useful to a militia?
 
Rucker61 said:
That's correct. It wasn't about whether only militia members could possess arms, then, was it?

The majority decision was based on a lie, anyway, as short barreled shotguns do possess traits useful to a militia.
Click to expand...

did you read that law review article I have cited several times that discusses the background of Miller and how the entire case was a set up by the federal government to find a way to sustain the 1934 NFA?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The fact that the SCOTUS changes its mind over time is by no means limited to the 2A. To say that guns used for hunting or self-defense are somehow not intended to be covered defies logic since originally there were few (if any) specialized guns that were designed specifically and exclusively for militia use. You are using interpretations to judge other interpretations and (arbitrarily?) assigning them weight.

There is absolutely no mention in the 16A of "based on how, or upon who, that income was later spent" or of "multiple income bracket rates" yet the power to "tax income from all sources" spawned laws that address those implied (derived?) powers much more so than than simply taxing all income equally. Modern use (interpretation?) of the 16A permits not only negative rates of taxation but to use the tax code to punish folks for not spending their income as directed. So, before you treat the 2A as "super special", or limited to "original intent", be sure to apply that legal exactness of your "primary source documentation" to the entire constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're going way afield of scope into some arcane avenue of diversion in my view. The meaning and intent of the original thinkers and writes and congress of the second amendment is a very simple one that was very pointed at the time and took advantage of an eons old security measure taken by societies that date a millennia.
 
Rucker61 said:
That's correct. It wasn't about whether only militia members could possess arms, then, was it?

The majority decision was based on a lie, anyway, as short barreled shotguns do possess traits useful to a militia.
Click to expand...


Wherein did I ever assert that? Secondly, you are completely contradicting yourself on Miller: the court determined that Miller's 18 inch shotgun barrel was NOT suitable for normal militia use. So the decision, as had others was narrowed by the "militia interpretation"
 
TurtleDude said:
did you read that law review article I have cited several times that discusses the background of Miller and how the entire case was a set up by the federal government to find a way to sustain the 1934 NFA?
Click to expand...

Please repost.
 
Lutherf said:
So the author's premise is that the Bill of Rights should hold no sway because it wasn't part of the Constitution? That's false on its face as the ratification of the Constitution included the BOR.

The author (and many of our anti gun "scholars") have so much trouble with this concept is because they believe, incorrectly, that the Constitution grants certain rights rather than prevents the government from infringing on those rights.
Click to expand...

That is not the author's premise. Please read the article and completely understand it and the OP.
 
jet57 said:
Wherein did I ever assert that? Secondly, you are completely contradicting yourself on Miller: the court determined that Miller's 18 inch shotgun barrel was NOT suitable for normal militia use. So the decision, as had others was narrowed by the "militia interpretation"
Click to expand...

They did find that, but those are, in fact suitable for miltary use and had in fact been used in the trenches in WW1. If the prevailing view was that only militia members had rights to own any weapon, SCOTUS would have not seen the case regardless of the length of Miller's shotgun, as he had no standing to bring the case forward.
 
RedAkston said:
Your "argument" is based on a lie, that's a freshman mistake. When what is "presented" is based on a lie, there really is no need to split hairs on my part. You on the other hand are the one slitting hairs because you're wanting everyone to ignore that your "argument" is in fact based on a lie.

PS Your thread is still an epic failure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, your comments are in no way competent and absolutely demonstrate that you have no understanding of the OP.

So, thanks for participating.
 
jet57 said:
That is not the author's premise. Please read the article and completely understand it and the OP.
Click to expand...

The same OP and article that's based on a lie?
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, your comments are in no way competent and absolutely demonstrate that you have no understanding of the OP.

So, thanks for participating.
Click to expand...

You've proven time and time and time and time again that you have no understanding of the Constitution and are particularly inept in your understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Your OP is based on a lie, this has already been proven as a fact. If you're going to try to make a valid point, not basing that attempt on a lie would be a good place to start.

So, thanks for creating a complete and utter failure of a thread, yet again.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, you're going way afield of scope into some arcane avenue of diversion in my view. The meaning and intent of the original thinkers and writes and congress of the second amendment is a very simple one that was very pointed at the time and took advantage of an eons old security measure taken by societies that date a millennia.
Click to expand...

I can agree that the 2A is very simple (a single sentence, in fact) and is definitely a right of the people thus attempts to equate people with (potential?) militia members is nonsense. The 2A, like the rest of the BoR was expressly intended to limit the power of the federal government not to give it more power over the states or over the people. These later "NRA interpretations" (as you seem to like to call them) are primarily concerned with whether the 2A, as a right of the people, also applied to the governments of several states and DC.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I can agree that the 2A is very simple (a single sentence, in fact) and is definitely a right of the people thus attempts to equate people with (potential?) militia members is nonsense. The 2A, like the rest of the BoR was expressly intended to limit the power of the federal government not to give it more power over the states or over the people. These later "NRA interpretations" (as you seem to like to call them) are primarily concerned with whether the 2A, as a right of the people, also applied to the governments of several states and DC.
Click to expand...


Again, your commentary has no credibility: the militia WAS the people! That was the whole purpose behind the militia clause! And you can say whatever you like about "limiting government", though I disagree with your interpretation of that concept on it, the entire thing is geared toward militia service as a security measure of local and state society.

The Heller decision, nor the NRA interpretation are concerned wholly with state powers under the 10th, that decision was based on the prohibiting of pistols in the home by a district located in our national capital; which is probably why they thought they had standing in that instance. They of course did not. San Francisco tried to pull that same trick and IT got "shot" down too, and I agree with both decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom