Another Gun Free Zone that isn't

general
264

To get the real meaning, read the second amendment (or, hell, any of the Constitution) with the definitions of the people who wrote it, not in the definitions of today.

Quote:

The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.

The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.

Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.

For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.

As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.

So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”

And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.

Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

2 Likes
265

But how do we balance that with keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them? The founders never dealt with and never envisioned that people would start shooting sprees. They never considered that a person accused of domestic violence would go after their accuser and shoot them. And they certainly never envisioned a time where you could fire off umpteen bullets in a minute - at the time, guns had to be reloaded after every shot.

266

Multi shot semi automatic air rifle invented in 1779. Girardoni air rifle - Wikipedia Was used in Lewis and Clark’s expedition. Many private citizens also owned artillery, ships of war, and even military style forts.

Anyone needing to shoot multiple times carried multiple pistols.And even if not, you could still get two round a minute out of a musket if you knew what you were doing. Given a response time of hours, if ever, back then that’s plenty fast enough to do whatever you need to if no one is fighting back.

I’m sure the founders ran into, or heard of events just like this. Where some crazy assed person would enter a home and kill everyone there. Or where a husband would kill his entire family. Some outpost where everyone was dead, including some poor asshole who shot himself. I also think that they considered that to be part of the price of liberty. In order to be free we have to be free to fuck up. Otherwise we aren’t really free.

2 Likes
267

Another mass shooting, this time at a center for developmentally-disabled people. One of the conference rooms was rented out for a holiday party for employees of the Department of Public Health.

And it is way too close to me.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/12/02/san-bernardino-mass-shooting-witness-account-orig.cnn?sr=fbCNN120315san-bernardino-mass-shooting-witness-account-orig1218AMVideoVideo&linkId=19256006

From one source:

Police are seeking one to three heavily armed men — who were wearing masks, military-style clothing and possibly body armor — after a mass shooting at Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino.

268

Remember this lady?

“I tried to help, and I learned my lesson that I will never help anybody again,” she said after her sentencing.

Mission accomplished.

269

“That weapon is there to protect yourself or others,” said Sgt. Chris Snyder, a spokesman for Elkhart police. “And somebody that’s running away from you, getting in a car to even go further away from you — does that really pose a risk to you or to anybody else?”

Well, that’s one police officer who is probably going to lose his pension - considering some of his colleagues across the country are claiming that shooting people who are walking away from them is self-defense.

270

A very intelligent response though. People aren’t supposed to be police drawing on non-violent criminals and blasting away. This guy will be fine, since he reflects the attitude of 90% of the pro gun policemen out there.The union might not agree, but they won’t move on it.

And didn’t both of these people miss their targets? If you are going to go all Batman on people, hit your damn target.

Saw another video of a drunk/crazy person in his underwear with a knife the other day. They tased him multiple times and he kept coming. Eventually he move too fast towards one of the officers with the knife presented and they shot him three or four times. While it’s a mess that they had to shoot, it does show that some police aren’t shooting till empty, reloading, and shooting some more now.

271

Reason number 1,254 the No Fly List is a bad idea for gun control.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local/right-name-wrong-man-knoxville-veterinarian-cant-get-off-no-fly-list-26f4d248-2e52-111a-e053-0100007-362692771.html?d=mobile

With no ability to get off the list.

272

“It’s a secret list,” said a TSA customer services representative, who wouldn’t give his name.

Secret lists, secret courts, secret enforcement agencies…haven’t we seen this movie before?

273

No and you are paranoid and sick.

The thing that kills me is you don’t even find out until you are at the damn gate. And it’s shared with other countries. If it’s used for gun reasons the list will balloon even more.

274

I think it’s a great idea - using the no fly list to stop people getting guns.
Then you just need to put everybody on the no-fly list and you’ve stopped gun crime in America!

275

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/mother-shot-home-invasion-fired-back-family-says/npGTN/

A young servicemember shot, because prosecutors dismissed the previous charges against her attacker.

I guess the prosecutors’ office didn’t feel like prosecuting.

276

And that’s why people can just keep adding more and more gun laws and creating more and more gun crimes and it won’t matter a damn bit. Plea bargains are a plague to our justice system and “overworked” prosecutors looking for high profile slam dunk cases are another issue.

277

I’m glad this woman defended herself and that her kids are safe. And I hope the other two scumbags are brought to justice.

278

They all three had guns, I’m confused … they must not have had bullets because after I pulled the trigger they just took off, instead of firing back.

Quote of the day.

The author used some odd phrasing on the ex-husband that had me thinking he was one of the people breaking in until I read the whole article. Either that or the caffeine hasn’t kicked in yet.

279

No, it wasn’t the caffeine. I have a pretty good idea for poorly-phrased sentences, and that one is damned near the top.

If it wasn’t for the quotes from the ex-husband, I would still be confused as hell.

280

Pathetic.

281

The crime is pretty bad too.

Who the hell wrote that article? Is the whole family and the friend bedridden? Was there more than one gun involved? I’m assuming there was only one gun used, otherwise it seems like a nasty self defense case.

The ages on this one strike me as odd. A 33 year-old man has both a 27 year-old friend and a 48 year old girlfriend? Not saying it matters to the case or anything, but dang, that’s dating up in Mom’s generation.

1 Like
282

Preaching to the choir, man.

I’m still trying to figure out which one was at home, considering that they say only one of the victims lived there, but the son was living with the mother.

283

“Armed protesters”. Not “thugs” (Ferguson). Not “terrorists” (San Bernardino). Not “rioters” (Baltimore).

“Armed protesters” makes it sound like “oh, they’re just exercising their free speech… the guns are just to protect themselves.”

Not only is this indicative of the polarized nature of politics, and how extreme that polarization is, in this country, but it also speaks to a lot of white Christian privilege, etc.

And yes, they are terrorists. They have deliberately frightened locals. They have taken over federal property, and refuse to leave. They are armed, and intend to use those arms against anyone who “trespasses” on the property they have seized.

How is this different from the American embassy in Tehran?