2nd Amendment from elsewhere

Posted on April 2, 2013

1


roundI admire the honesty in the post below,  but there’s not  a lot of open minded attitude.

From http://cjonline.com/opinion/2013-01-21/letter-repeal-second-amendment

“I propose repeal of the Second Amendment.

Constitutional amendments are not easy, but that is no reason not to start. Examples of slavery, women’s suffrage and other civil rights tell us that.

I am the son of a gun enthusiast who taught me firearms, safety and hunting, with his large collection of long guns and handguns — alas, stolen and now probably in the hands of criminals. Now I see no reason for any guns whatsoever.

Hunting, sportsmen, collections, self-defense, none of these reasons justifies allowing criminals or lunatics to murder our families, friends and neighbors because the Second Amendment allows gun ownership.

The concocted and irrational decision authored by Justice Scalia simply erased the Militia Clause from the Second Amendment, which seemed rather obviously to tie the bearing of arms to national defense. That clause is now meaningless, and one must wonder why the Framers of the Bill of Rights included it in the first place if it means nothing.

Put aside all prejudice and imagine our country in, say, 200 years.

Will we still be slaughtering each other and our first-graders, movie-goers, religious observants and students because of some obedience to the Second Amendment? Will we still be listening to the gun lobby defending more lethal weapons in the hands of everyone on the argument that the best defense is more guns? Surely everyone knows that assault weapons have but one purpose, and it’s not any of those given reasons to possess guns. Have we ever heard of anyone using an assault weapon in actual self-defense?

Be objective and imagine a country, even a world, with no guns, no guns at all.

It would not happen quickly, but it must start sometime. It would be better.”

I’ll work my way through this – (Commenting appears to be locked so…)

“I propose repeal of the Second Amendment.

Constitutional amendments are not easy, but that is no reason not to start. Examples of slavery, women’s suffrage and other civil rights tell us that.

I am the son of a gun enthusiast who taught me firearms, safety and hunting, with his large collection of long guns and handguns — alas, stolen and now probably in the hands of criminals. Now I see no reason for any guns whatsoever.”

I heartily agree that a changing Constitution was the intent of the originators of our laws. Both creation and repeal of amendments were spelled out.

How do you lose a large collection of guns? Did they cut the floor out from under his safe? Did they torch it? With that many (however many) was not a single one ever found?

Have you ceased to see the reasons for using a gun because they were stolen? Because you grew up and saw more harm to other people than you saw good? You grew up and now trust only the US military to operate killing arms? What changed? It looks like you are saying “Because his guns were stolen and probably in the hands of criminals, I see no reason for civilians to have any.”? What is different between what you thought then, and what you think now?

“Hunting, sportsmen, collections, self-defense, none of these reasons justifies allowing criminals or lunatics to murder our families, friends and neighbors because the Second Amendment allows gun ownership.

The concocted and irrational decision authored by Justice Scalia simply erased the Militia Clause from the Second Amendment, which seemed rather obviously to tie the bearing of arms to national defense. That clause is now meaningless, and one must wonder why the Framers of the Bill of Rights included it in the first place if it means nothing.”

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, sports or self-defense between citizens.* It’s clear that it relates to local militia not a standing army. My proof is in the fact that the words ‘Standing Army’ are used elsewhere. If they had only used “Militia” where ‘Standing Army’ was used, then it would be different. If you look at what they were doing and dealing with at the time, it is possible to divine the intent. They were fighting with their own government over taxes (business) and representation. They didn’t like the idea of sending their ‘hard earned’ money to England. They had paid taxes before then but, for whatever reason, felt the new taxes to be too high. (Maybe the revolutionaries got greedy?) So, from the point of Britain, we were a bunch of brats who didn’t want to give the crown it’s due. When Britain had been supporting and protecting (and using) the colonies for years and years. Makes things a little different, eh? (And yes, whether this viewpoint is historically correct or not, this is my home and will not leave. It’s the combination of people and system.)**

A number of colonists decided that it was in their best interest to be rid of these taxes and staged a revolt. They were able to complete that revolt by using weapons that were owned by private British citizens who believed in the financial rewards for the revolt. Keeping these weapons available and nebulous (in many different houses) allowed for security from destruction or theft from arsenals and put the costs of using these weapons in the hands of the owners. By leaving the weapons separate, instead of a single location blocked a decisive smash on the weapons depots. The British couldn’t just aim one blow and it was over. It became a war of paper cuts. If you read the letters of the new leaders in that time, the intent of the second amendment was for fear of further tyranny by the new government.

Concocted and irrational decision? By putting the weapons in the hands of the citizens, the Supreme Court has backed the idea of the second amendment – tyranny of the local government was to be avoided. If people aren’t willing to try to amend the Constitiution, rather than let it fall, the courts produced a new reason to let the 2nd amendment stand. You may have seen or heard the statement given by Isoroku Yamamoto, Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II about invading the Continental US. It would be far too costly to be worth enacting; there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.  That isn’t speaking of the standing army that was already engaging them, it  is the civilians with guns that stopped the Japanese from attempting to invade. It gave a back bone to something already in existence; a second reason to have the populace armed.

“which seemed rather obviously to tie the bearing of arms to national defense. ” Where? It says Militia NOT Standing Army. It has nothing to do with National Defense.

“That clause is now meaningless, and one must wonder why the Framers of the Bill of Rights included it in the first place if it means nothing.”

Adding to the reason that the second amendment make sense invalidates the first reason? By saying what they have, the SCOTUS has taken the argument over Militias (State or Local?) and removed it thereby strengthening the effect of the second amendment.

“Put aside all prejudice and imagine our country in, say, 200 years.

Will we still be slaughtering each other and our first-graders, movie-goers, religious observants and students because of some obedience to the Second Amendment? ”

No, we will not be slaughtering each other (and others) because of some obedience to the Second Amendment. Because it’s not obedience. It’s a check on the government. There are others. Do you know where the Miranda ‘rights’ stem from? Check the 5th amendment.  But, it’s obedience to a law written 220+ years ago. So tear it down, right? What about the right to choice of religion, to free speech, to the press, to peaceable protest the government, to have a way to get justice when the government steps on your rights as listed in the Constitution? Blind obedience to them leads to allowing hate speech, leads to libel and slander, leads to blocking entrances to schools,  businesses and government property and leads to paying out multimillion dollar lawsuits. If you are going to repeal the second amendment, toss the rest out.

Just because there are bad side effects to a law doesn’t make the basic law bad. Nor does it stop the good from that law from overpowering the bad.

“Will we still be listening to the gun lobby defending more lethal weapons in the hands of everyone on the argument that the best defense is more guns? Surely everyone knows that assault weapons have but one purpose, and it’s not any of those given reasons to possess guns. Have we ever heard of anyone using an assault weapon in actual self-defense?”

There was no limitation put by the originators of the Constitution on the weapons to be borne by the People in the Militias. In fact many of the Patriots had cannons, and ships and loads of weaponry. How do you think they fought? Just suddenly a non-existent Army from a non-existent government just pops up with heavy artillery, munitions and ships? If you follow the idea that the second amendment was about defending against a tyrannical government, then the average person was to have the same basic weapon as would be needed to repel a local or foreign army. What is the basic weapon for today’s standing army? The select fire automatic. NOT a semi. And the analogous weapon to the cannon? Rocket Launcher? Bazooka? Artillery/Howitzer? And the ships? A 400 ton destroyer? Due to the NFA (National Firearms Act) the creation of new automatic weapons (which are the basic weapons which the single soldier carries i.e. ‘Assault Weapons’)  for civilians is banned. And the ownership of an automatic weapon is only at the behest (and taxed by) the US Government.  So we already are controlling the guns. When was the last time you heard of a shoot-out with automatic weapons ON the citizen’s side? The military and some some police have automatics.

All arms have one purpose to harm another creature. Human or not. What is talked about being banned is NOT an assault weapon. An assault weapon is what Homeland Security is asking for hundreds of 0f; small, easy to carry automatic weapons with a high capacity for rounds. If we have a standing Army (and Navy and Air Force and Marines and National Guard) why does Homeland Security need 2 BILLION new rounds of hollow point bullets? (HPs are good at reducing passing through walls and maximize the effect of a pistol caliber round.) You don’t train with HPs. So who’s really paranoid? If the glass slipper fits…

What you are complaining about is a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity removable magazine. And these are clearly useful for multiple aggressor situations. Since the hit rate in a true emergency is low (more than 50% misses) the police feel they need more than 10 rounds. Add to this more than one  aggressor, and the need for more than 10 rounds becomes expressly clear. When it comes to semi-auto, if you fire and hit the bad guy and he/she keeps coming, should you have to break open the weapon, load another single shot, then aim and fire? If that works so well, why aren’t the police doing the same? In general they are facing the same criminals as homeowners. Does the function of the gun change because of whose hand it is in?

Massad Ayoob (ex-police officer, highly esteemed in gun community. He’s like the Richard Petty of the gun world. Been there, done that) says this:

“The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families.”

And yes, there have been recorded cases where a person used a semi-automatic rifle to defend themselves. Offhand, the defense of Korean-Americans during the LA Riots comes to mind first. And recently a 15 year old boy used one to protect his 12 year old sister.

“Be objective and imagine a country, even a world, with no guns, no guns at all.

It would not happen quickly, but it must start sometime. It would be better.”

I think every true soldier (and true citizen) would love a world without guns. A place where my grandchildren don’t have to go to school in the most dangerous place you can – a gun free zone. Where drive-by knifings are the standard. It’s a beautiful dream. And it’s a pipe dream. Unless you genetically re-engineer humans, they will find weapons to hurt each other with. If it’s not a stolen semi 22, it’s a home built auto 9mm. Sure,

‘Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one’

I too am a dreamer. But I don’t believe that any time soon, man will cease to be violent. It appears we are getting worse, NOT better.

Are you looking to get rid of guns or are you looking to save lives? Newtown and other such ‘mass killings’ are rare – numbers range up to 50 people die a year in mass shootings in America. The FBI and federal government have released numbers that only between 2 and 8% of all shootings are done by a semi-auto rifle. Of 10,000 people a year killed with guns, that’s 200  to 800 people a year. Agreed I want them alive, BUT which is wiser, saving 800 or 8000? Handguns are used to make the majority of killings, not AR-15s or Mini14s or AK47s. Really worried about the number of deaths? Work on handguns.

* To those who call me paranoid about a tyrannous government. Ask the Americans of Japanese descent what wonderful Constitutional treatment hey received during World War II. Want more to worry about? Study the Patriot Act and NDAA. Watch the behavior of the Executive Branch. Every month, a new border in human rights is crossed. Every month that these thigns are allowed is another foothold tyranny can create.

**To those who are upset over my comments about taxes and the revolutionary heroes. History is told many years later with many different stories and many “facts” come out. Our forefathers were great men. And like any other  person, they were horrible too.  I think we will never know the truth. I also think that what they accomplished was beyond amazing. A Republic that lasted more than 80 years (200+ if you think we’re still in that glorious republic.) It was a beautiful dream and something I hope to see rise from the ashes. We may have romanticized them, but they deserve as much or more respect than we give them.

Advertisements