• 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]

Kobie said:
If your definition of "fun" is "missing the entire point in order to score dictionary points," have at it.
Click to expand...

The point of the OP has already been refuted in this thread.
 
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...

"The right if the people to keep and bear arms."

So we have the right to own and use firearms. How has that changed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Polar Bum said:
Eh....not exactly accurate. the 1934 NFA placed restrictions on certain weapons; I'm pretty sure a MANPAD system would fall under the heading of "destructive devices".....unless you can show how it could be used for sporting purposes for duck hunting.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it should be like that.
 
vegas giants said:
Then you want the right to bear arms infringed. Its ok....we all agree with you. Its common sense
Click to expand...

there is nothing remotely approaching common sense involved in unconstitutionally infringing on the RKBA. what is common sense is that gun banners use gun control as a political weapon against groups that vote against liberals
 
TurtleDude said:
there is nothing remotely approaching common sense involved in unconstitutionally infringing on the RKBA. what is common sense is that gun banners use gun control as a political weapon against groups that vote against liberals
Click to expand...

Uh...that's nice. But nothing to do with the point
 
vegas giants said:
Uh...that's nice. But nothing to do with the point
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any relevant points in your posts concerning the lie that the NRA rewrote the second amendment. Until the FDR lapdog court came along-the second amendment was always seen as guaranteeing an individual right. A court in Georgia prior to the Civil war struck down a STATE restriction concerning the bearing of arms. It was only after the duplicitous Miller court started pretending that the federal government could ignore the second amendment did the collective rights nonsense pop up as fans of federal gun restrictions had to reinterpret the second amendment in order to pretend those federal restrictions were not violations of both the 2nd and 10th Amendments
 
TurtleDude said:
I have yet to see any relevant points in your posts concerning the lie that the NRA rewrote the second amendment. Until the FDR lapdog court came along-the second amendment was always seen as guaranteeing an individual right. A court in Georgia prior to the Civil war struck down a STATE restriction concerning the bearing of arms. It was only after the duplicitous Miller court started pretending that the federal government could ignore the second amendment did the collective rights nonsense pop up as fans of federal gun restrictions had to reinterpret the second amendment in order to pretend those federal restrictions were not violations of both the 2nd and 10th Amendments
Click to expand...

You mean Wickard? The decision that has stood for over 80 years and has never even had a serious attempt to be overturned? That one? LOL
 
vegas giants said:
You mean Wickard? The decision that has stood for over 80 years and has never even had a serious attempt to be overturned? That one? LOL
Click to expand...

spamming wickard is not responsive to this point I made
try again
 
TurtleDude said:
spamming wickard is not responsive to this point I made
try again
Click to expand...

But it is true. You are referring to a decision that has stood the test of time. That is a fact. You may not like that fact but it remains true. And it will not likely be overturned at any point in the near future. Time to get used to it.
 
vegas giants said:
But it is true. You are referring to a decision that has stood the test of time. That is a fact. You may not like that fact but it remains true. And it will not likely be overturned at any point in the near future. Time to get used to it.
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with the democrats re-interpreting the second amendment?
 
TurtleDude said:
what does that have to do with the democrats re-interpreting the second amendment?
Click to expand...

Democrats do not reinterpret the second amendment. Any interpretations of the BOR takes place at SCOTUS.
 
vegas giants said:
Democrats do not reinterpret the second amendment. Any interpretations of the BOR takes place at SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

another falsehood. its Democrat appointees to the Supreme court and Democrat politicians who have misinterpreted the second amendment. The NRA merely correctly cites the original intent and the proper interpretation
 
TurtleDude said:
another falsehood. its Democrat appointees to the Supreme court and Democrat politicians who have misinterpreted the second amendment. The NRA merely correctly cites the original intent and the proper interpretation
Click to expand...

Nope. The members of SCOTUS have no allegaince to any party once appointed. They have a lifetime term....are they going to be fired? LOL
 
vegas giants said:
Nope. The members of SCOTUS have no allegaince to any party once appointed. They have a lifetime term....are they going to be fired? LOL
Click to expand...

OMG this is hilarious
 
vegas giants said:
I await your evidence. Here is mine Roberts supported the ACA but was appointed by Bush.
Click to expand...

every democrat -when faced with a gun issue vote-has always voted against gun rights. Roberts also rejected the main theory of the democrats-that the commerce clause allowed the ACA
 
RedAkston said:
Is the title of this thread "How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment" or not? Is the title of the article you linked to "How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment" or not?

The 2nd amendment has not been re-written by anyone and your thread is a failure of epic proportions. You don't have to like that, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the OP, but you're being too literal. The thread title says "rewrote" but its meaning is to imply that through lobbying, the way it is interpreted has been changed to suit a wide variety of newer agendas. The Constitution is a living document and the courts have to apply newer precedents to it all the time. For example, we didn't have AK-47s and automatic rifles back in the 1700's. We didn't have bazookas and rocket launchers.

The OP is trying to make the case that the NRA has successfully changed the way people see the 2nd Amendment, which is different than its original purpose. Again, I don't agree... but I also don't like watching you split hairs over the word "rewrote". Of course the wording is exactly the same as it has always been. Can we move on now? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom