• 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]

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...


Well, I don't agree. I think the founders were quite clear in their writing that they intended an individual right to arms.


But more to the point, even if it isn't so, I really don't care. I support the RKBA for a number of reasons. Philosophical: the capacity to use force is the only guarantor of freedom. Pragmatic: I'd probably be dead long ago otherwise. Personal: I like shooting sports and hunting.

If there were no 2A I'd be lobbying to create one.


But there is, and an individual right to arms was pretty clearly part of the Founder's world view and intent.
 
jet57 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is nonsense and you know it - at best the militia was limited to males within a certain age range. That is why the 14A was not deemed sufficient (at that time) to give blacks and/or women even the basic right "of the people" to vote which is likely why the 15A and 19A were deemed necessary as additional amendments.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
Clarified; or reinterpreted to fit and agenda based argument?

It would seem to me that an 1840 Supreme Court was muuuuch closer to the original intent AND possibly some of it's writers that the NRA of today. And the 1840 Supreme Court didn't see it the NRA way.
Click to expand...

And the 1840s take on slavery?

And there WAS NO NRA in 1840, so how could SCOTUS agree or disagree with an argument not made?
 
Goshin said:
Well, I don't agree. I think the founders were quite clear in their writing that they intended an individual right to arms.


But more to the point, even if it isn't so, I really don't care. I support the RKBA for a number of reasons. Philosophical: the capacity to use force is the only guarantor of freedom. Pragmatic: I'd probably be dead long ago otherwise. Personal: I like shooting sports and hunting.

If there were no 2A I'd be lobbying to create one.


But there is, and an individual right to arms was pretty clearly part of the Founder's world view and intent.
Click to expand...

But not over and above that simple proposition. The modernization of weaponry and the collapse of the militia system - as such - changes the dynamic. The NRA and manufactures are only interested in pushing product: it's the tobacco companies all over again! And that "marketing scheme" is what is driving the NRA to in their briefs and papers rewrite the entire concept of the second amendment, into an open and free policy to own what you want, and carry whatever you want anywhere you want. It's like saying that cigarettes won't harm you all the while those companies were packing them with addictive chemicals in order to get people to buy more cigarettes!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is nonsense and you know it - at best the militia was limited to males within a certain age range. That is why the 14A was not deemed sufficient (at that time) to give blacks and/or women even the basic right "of the people" to vote which is likely why the 15A and 19A were deemed necessary as additional amendments.
Click to expand...

Oh please dude; don't insult my intelligence with yet more dancing around a very simple truth.
 
Fledermaus said:
And the 1840s take on slavery?

And there WAS NO NRA in 1840, so how could SCOTUS agree or disagree with an argument not made?
Click to expand...

Yeah, your opinion are incompetent; thanks for your participation.
 
jet57 said:
Part 1

So, I’m raising a subject that I believe is a very serious point about our second amendment and what has become of it. To say the very least, it has been transformed into an emotionally driven political football that has also stood in as a patriotic litmus test; something that was just not conceived of when and after it was passed in the Bill of Rights.

How the NRA Rewrote The Second Amendment is an idea that has merit and quite a few supporting articles written about it. I have chosen one for the OP example, as it is the most concisely written and easily understood ones to use in the context of a discussion forum.

I present highlights from the story and my commentary in two pages which illustrates the point.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine


I’ve noticed that most of the supporting rhetoric of the NRA version on the issue has been drawn directly from the language of the Heller decision.




What we learn from the above paragraph is that a strong central government was placed into our system by design, so that the people of the country could hold sway over any state that deviated too far; hence our Civil War and emancipation, not to mention the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.


“Bearing Arms” has always been a phrase of offensive action with military connotations, so the NRA version of the second amendment doesn’t hold water in that respect.
Click to expand...

I look forward to your post on how Nazi's rewrote the 1st amendment because court cases they have been involved in have been the major catalyst for expanding the 1st amendment.
 
Goshin said:
Well, I don't agree. I think the founders were quite clear in their writing that they intended an individual right to arms.


But more to the point, even if it isn't so, I really don't care. I support the RKBA for a number of reasons. Philosophical: the capacity to use force is the only guarantor of freedom. Pragmatic: I'd probably be dead long ago otherwise. Personal: I like shooting sports and hunting.

If there were no 2A I'd be lobbying to create one.


But there is, and an individual right to arms was pretty clearly part of the Founder's world view and intent.
Click to expand...

Indeed. All the more reason not to give any traction to those who wish to rewrite it out of the constitution. Much better to have textualists on the SC. Some principals simply can't be, and shouldn't be, bargained, nor negotiated away.
 
jet57 said:
But not over and above that simple proposition. The modernization of weaponry and the collapse of the militia system - as such - changes the dynamic. The NRA and manufactures are only interested in pushing product: it's the tobacco companies all over again! And that "marketing scheme" is what is driving the NRA to in their briefs and papers rewrite the entire concept of the second amendment, into an open and free policy to own what you want, and carry whatever you want anywhere you want. It's like saying that cigarettes won't harm you all the while those companies were packing them with addictive chemicals in order to get people to buy more cigarettes!
Click to expand...

Guns are physiologically addictive how again?
 
jet57 said:
But not over and above that simple proposition. The modernization of weaponry and the collapse of the militia system - as such - changes the dynamic. The NRA and manufactures are only interested in pushing product: it's the tobacco companies all over again! And that "marketing scheme" is what is driving the NRA to in their briefs and papers rewrite the entire concept of the second amendment, into an open and free policy to own what you want, and carry whatever you want anywhere you want. It's like saying that cigarettes won't harm you all the while those companies were packing them with addictive chemicals in order to get people to buy more cigarettes!
Click to expand...

You still haven't demonstrated where the 2nd amendment was REWRITTEN.
 
jet57 said:
But not over and above that simple proposition. The modernization of weaponry and the collapse of the militia system - as such - changes the dynamic. The NRA and manufactures are only interested in pushing product: it's the tobacco companies all over again! And that "marketing scheme" is what is driving the NRA to in their briefs and papers rewrite the entire concept of the second amendment, into an open and free policy to own what you want, and carry whatever you want anywhere you want. It's like saying that cigarettes won't harm you all the while those companies were packing them with addictive chemicals in order to get people to buy more cigarettes!
Click to expand...



Again, I disagree. And comparing gun makers to "big tobacco" is just .... well nonsensical.


But even if you somehow managed to convince me there was no original intent for the 2A as a personal and individual right (improbable and no where close so far), it wouldn't change my position on the RKBA by a millimeter.
 
Goshin said:
Again, I disagree. And comparing gun makers to "big tobacco" is just .... well nonsensical.


But even if you somehow managed to convince me there was no original intent for the 2A as a personal and individual right (improbable and no where close so far), it wouldn't change my position on the RKBA by a millimeter.
Click to expand...


It make perfect sense for goals, tactics and results.
 
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...

The NRA can NOT re-write an Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 
jet57 said:
It make perfect sense for goals, tactics and results.
Click to expand...

Your goals will not be achieved, your tactics are ineffective. You will get no results.

We will not give you another inch because you will never stop there, no truce with the shadow.
 
jet57 said:
Oh please dude; don't insult my intelligence with yet more dancing around a very simple truth.
Click to expand...

The very simple truth is that many arms typical of "militia" use are not protected by the 2A and even the most basic "assault rifle" (M16A2) is illegal. So cut the crap that the 2A is about milltias and the individual small arms typically used by them.

EDIT: It is obvious to me where you wish to take this "militia right" nonsense - the "modern militia" is no longer made up of the people thus rendering the 2A as entirely moot so no guns are off limits for government bans. Am I close or right on target here?
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Well, I don't agree. I think the founders were quite clear in their writing that they intended an individual right to arms.


But more to the point, even if it isn't so, I really don't care. I support the RKBA for a number of reasons. Philosophical: the capacity to use force is the only guarantor of freedom. Pragmatic: I'd probably be dead long ago otherwise. Personal: I like shooting sports and hunting.

If there were no 2A I'd be lobbying to create one.


But there is, and an individual right to arms was pretty clearly part of the Founder's world view and intent.
Click to expand...

you cannot find any documents from the founders that contradict what you say. Its why the gun banners are so wrong. They pretend that the founders didn't intend an individual right and yet they cannot find any comment from any single founder that supports that. Then they have to pretend that the commerce clause was properly expanded by the FDR regime and that tracts original intent.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The very simple truth is that many arms typical of "militia" use are not protected by the 2A and even the most basic "assault rifle" (M16A2) is illegal. So cut the crap that the 2A is about milltias and the individual small arms typically used by them.
Click to expand...

actually the passage of the Lautenberg amendment destroyed the "collective rights" nonsense. If the 2nd amendment protected the "right" (LOL-states have powers not rights) of a state to arm its militia then the Lautenberg amendment could not be enforced against state police or NG members
 
I refuse to be on the side of guns everywhere side or the no guns anywhere side. This is a complete waste of time and all of you are wasting your time and energy on ideals that will more than likely kill you than be resolved by you. There might be an intelligent path forward, but ya'll ain't likely to find it.
 
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...

Jet, back in 1791. the 2nd read "A well regulated militia .....shall not be infringed". NRA came about in late 1800's. At that time the 2nd read: "A well regulated militia .....shall not be infringed". Today it reads: "A well regulated militia .....shall not be infringed".

What part did the NRA rewrite?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is nonsense and you know it - at best the militia was limited to males within a certain age range. That is why the 14A was not deemed sufficient (at that time) to give blacks and/or women even the basic right "of the people" to vote which is likely why the 15A and 19A were deemed necessary as additional amendments.
Click to expand...

I think Jet's got that backward. The people were the militia, not the other way around. But focusing on a explanatory or prefatory phrase and claiming that it is the meaning of the sentence means somebody slept through third grade English.
 
trblmkr said:
I refuse to be on the side of guns everywhere side or the no guns anywhere side. This is a complete waste of time and all of you are wasting your time and energy on ideals that will more than likely kill you than be resolved by you. There might be an intelligent path forward, but ya'll ain't likely to find it.
Click to expand...

SVxfSih.jpg
 
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...

Hey Jet, you missed a spot.

TurtleDude said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom