Forum Post: OWS and Second Amendment Rights
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 4, 2012, 4:28 p.m. EST by toonces
(-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Does OWS support the second amendment and gun ownership?
Second amendment success story!
Teen Mom Kills Intruder
if find the fact that the Klan supported gun control to be proof that it is bad. and the fact that a slave is the one without a gun
An unarmed man is easy to make a slave.
building bombs 'til bunkers boil
getting paid for shell filled toil
if I am to work tomorrow
lobe the load on foreign soil
yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget
World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations
39% United States
18% Russia
8% France
7% United Kingdom
5% Germany
3% China
3% Italy
11% Other European
5% Others
http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations
TOP 10 Arms Produces
Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers
Widow Winchester's riffle wealth warped her house.
Stairs to ceilings. Windows to walls.
Always slept in a new room,
hiding from shot souls
i agree completely
I support the right to arm bears.
And I would give them free ammo.
fyi for all you glenn beck haters out there. the blaze is a GB website.
yeah- I missed that. Not being a fan I don't bother to keep up with what he's doing.
I can't say I'm very surprised.
arent surprised about what?
too.ncis is a rightie.
He's been trying not to be too pushy about it.
ncis as in the TV show? i have no idea what your mean?
typo - toonces
author of the post
In Switzerland, almost everyone has an M16 at home, and their murder rate is virtually zero.
SIG 522, not M16......the SIG is a better weapon
I can't speak for OWS.
But as for me, I invite you to break into my house and find out...
I am not an OWS loafer, I do not support taking your money from you. I support your right to keep the money you earn as well as your right to keep arms against those who would take it.
So you support corruption in other words. Wall Street should take everyone's money. More corporate welfare for the Wall Street loafers who live off of other people's hard earned money and taxes.
What about people who make money destroying the environment we all share? Why do the rest of us have to live in a polluted hell hole and be jolted by fracking earthquakes... and get zero in return?
I've been thinkin about it and ok I'm ready, as soon as we send out the discharge notice to every person in uniform, sign the blanket presidential pardon for all federal prisoners and layoff all the federal judges, guards, TSA and border patrol, send all the bankers notes telling them we won’t be paying interest or the principal on any of those notes. Then we can even stop sending out the welfare checks after all sending money for people to eat should be the last thing we cut off.
I support gun ownership
Just watch this.
http://gma.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder-911-operators-okay-091106413.html
I keep my gun loaded for crazy
Sure, why not? I support it, anyway....
United States Constitution;
Article One, Section Eight:
"The Congress shall have power..."
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
click click.......................................................................
Of course. We are the 99%
[-] Corium (356) 1 points 1 hour ago
Please pick the correct version of the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed."
Well said. I would like to add that the Amendment, Second Amendment doesn't give any oversight over it to neither Congress nor the State or both. The Amendment doesn't say: "Congress or Congress and the States" shall have power to enforce this Amendment by appropriate legislation.
That is that all federal and State laws passed which regulate firearms are unconstitutional but those skunks at the U.S. "Criminal" Supreme Court cannot see and don't want to see this limitation to federal authority.
This doesn't mean that I'm willing to give violent people.or people prone to violence, a firearm. Not at all, but those who need for protection they should have them after proper training even though the Amendment doesn't mention about training.
Most OWS people also support Obama therefore if they claim to support gun ownership it becomes just another instance of hypocrisy by the Left.
If you did vote Obama and will vote Obama you are voting against the 2nd Amendment. This is a fact and "Fast and Furious" and the POS Holder are prime examples of Obama's agenda.
I think you'll find that support for Obama is tenuous at this point.
Yeah maybe,but the desire for Govt. regulation and intervention into every facet of American life and business is strong in this forum. The idea that Govt. will level the playing field and make life fair and equitable through the stealing and regulation/redistribution of other peoples wealth is a common theme.
And this as most people know is a tenet of Obama's ideology he is currently propagating in Obamacare and many other policies.
Most of us acknowledge the obvious, nations where wealth disparity is low (like Sweden or Norway) have a very high quality of life (even their wealthy citizens are comparatively better off in terms of health, lifespan, etc.). Speaking at least for myself, I favor an evidence based approach (provided a society has a strong commitment to liberty and human rights), and the evidence makes our case for us.
We didn't vote for Obama to regulate guns.
We voted for him because we thought he was going to deal with all the issue we're putting forward right now.
You know. Impose of regulations on wallstreet, criminal prosecutions on those who lied about the value of the mortgages, protect American jobs, environmental action, a withdrawal from Afghanistan, etc...
Instead we got a weird stimulus package, extension of the Bush tax cuts and more wars. As for the healthcare bill I still don't know whether its good or bad.
"We didn't vote for Obama to regulate guns." Well you knew he would. So that just proves you don't believe in the 2nd Amendment.
And if you still don't know whether Obamacare is bad I would have to believe you're not paying attention.
This much ignorance is very troubling.
He never mentioned regulating guns on his campaign.
Also the healthcare reform won't take effect until 2014 and entails a lot of things.
"He never mentioned regulating guns on his campaign"
No shit he didn't,why would he want to alienate pro gun Dem voters, but anybody who knows anything about Liberal Dems like Obama know these politicians are anti gun. It is a fundamental understanding.
Conservatives did our best to vet Obama because the media and the Dems wouldn't.
Obamacare is already having a negative impact and it's only going to get worse.
Because he said change was coming? It was almost as good a slogan as the 99%
Well yeah, he even signed the dodd frank which was supposed to regulate corporations but hasn't for some reason.
Well I don't know about that but I hope you see where I was going.
I think Obi Wan Kenobi best describes Obama.
"You were the Chosen One! You were supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them...Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness!"
Sounds about right
The operative basis of the Second Amendment is the phrase about the "well regulated militia". so it is truly ironic that libertarians, who staunchly defend the Second Amendment also staunchly oppose government regulation.
[Deleted]
The version I posted comes from Cornell Law School web site.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment
Nothing you post changes anything that I posted. Deflection is not debate. It is evasion.
[Deleted]
it seems to me that it is so the people can form a militia if necessary, to protect themselves from whatever threat, governmental or otherwise.
Your interpretation ignores the entire constitution.
Fair enough... Who is a member of a well regulated militia? People. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
that "regulated" means "Trained" .......not as in a legal prohibition....
"I ask sir, what is a militia? it is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them" Spoken by George Mason ( co-author of the second amendment) during the Virginia Convention to ratify the Constitution, 1788
I thought that question was answered in the affirmative a couple of times already.
the right to bare arms in a state militia was so states can defend their rights against a federal government
Not true. Militias were the army of their time. It was to defend the entire country from external threats, like the British, with whom, you may recall, a war had just ended.
the colonies did not completely trust each other
True, but the law was really about external threats, not threats from one colony to another. I'm not saying that didn't factor in, but it wasn't the main thrust according to all the history I have read about it.
Regardless, it had little to do with individual rights for their own sake, but rather for the protection of the State.
the civil war would have been different without the states rights to bare arms in a militia
As would the shooting of Giffords and thousands of murders injuries and fatal accidents that happen in this country every year.
over three times as many die of drug related causes, and twice as many die of alcohol related causes.....almost three times more by poisoning, than die from firearms.....via the CDC
Simply not being the worst doesn't make it good.
life is dangerous......considering the number of firearms in circulation..it's a very rare occurrence in most areas
And guns make life more dangerous.
97,820 people were shot in America last year. 268 get shot every day.
You van parse it any way you want, but that's 97,820 times the danger that would exist without guns.
Is it the worst injury statistic in the country? Nope. Is is good. Not by any stretch of the imagination. And it's totally unnecessary.
you mean "bear " arms, not "bare" arms , unless you're referring the the first wookie.
homophones shall be my falling
Thats' O.K.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
So, are you saying that the people have a right to keep and bear arms to ensure that they can be secure that they will remain in a state of freedom?
not sure bearing arms is practical with the growing population
if everyone has a gun . someone will shot at someone else
London England has a growing population and last reported every 51 minutes in that city there is a stabbing or crime related to a knife. We should regulate anything pointy and house hold kitchen wear now.
automobiles
if people are armed, they can defend themselves.
by harming others
There are plenty of awful, bad people in this country that should indeed be harmed.
there are only people
You obviously haven't had the pleasure of dealing with some of the animals who call themselves people.
all people are animals
Exactly. And some should be shot.
if someone breaks into my house with the intent of robbing me or doing me harm, being armed, i could defend myself , my famly and my property. Self defense.
if someone breaks into my rented
I could defend myself
by alerting the 40 neighbors
I would be unportable if any other of the renters owned guns
a black iron skillet is faster in close combat
how do intend to alert your neighbors in less than one minute when the intruder is pointing a gun at you? you're going to defend yourself with a skillet when the intruder has a gun? how naive.
my neighbor is in the room next door
So, while your apartment is being broken into, you will casually knock on your common wall and expect help? if the intruder is armed, you'll be dead by the time the "help" arrives. When seconds count, the cops will be there in minutes.
just kill me already
Bad people use guns and on and shoot good people quite regularly. Is it fair to disarm the good people so only the bad people have weapons?
If only it was as simple as that. Unfortunately, it isn't.
Gun ownership is protected, even if it so because of a lobbying effort and a corrupt faction of the Supreme court. So it's a given.
But they need to be heavily regulated so that:
Other than that, the law, as it is currently interpreted, allows private gun ownership, and as a citizen, I'm bound to go along with it. That doesn't mean I support it intellectually or emotionally, or won't argue about it once in a while. (Not in the mood for an argument now, though).
Just to be clear, that's my personal position, not OWS's as far as I know.
of course not
people are human
they get violent
good guys go bad
disarm the US police force
It's not just the 2nd Amendment that is under attack. Why is the US Congress drafting legislation to save immigration reform and stricter gun control instead legislation to restore habeas corpus; restore Glass Steagall; repeal Patriot Act; repeal warrantless wiretaps; repeal warrantless search and seizure?
Max Keiser Reports On Threshhold of Tyranny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ha9lPU1c60
Threshold????
There has been actual, provable tyranny in Michigan for 2 years running now and not a word from Max, you, nor any number of gun nutters.
No, the second amendment was never under attack, but the working class and democracy in general have been.
Are you saying 2nd Amendment was never under attack? Without a 2nd Amendment there won't be a working class as we know it. More people die from drug overdose than firearms.It would be very bad press for medical and pharma industries to fail to better regulate prescribed drugs.
Piers Morgan vs Alex Jones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQPZ-taYBs
Who is defending the 2nd Amendment?
A chorus of Congressmen have the 2nd Amendment in their crosshairs just like they had habeous corpus in their sites. Was it whisked away in a cloud of smoke - ash and dust ne'er to be seen anywhere again?
Who defends the rest of them?
The NRA has made a conspiracy theory JOKE of the 2nd for decades now.
Meanwhile the carnage continues.
It's not like you've been doing anything at all worthwhile with it anyway.
The elected officials of our government take an oath to defend them -
Oath of Office
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Federal_Executive_and_Legislative_Branch_Oaths
Failure to Defend US Constitution: Andrew Jackson
http://wso.williams.edu/~ljacobso/MasterPlan/writings/AndrewJackson.html
The Cherokee Nation didn't have the NRA and the 2nd Amendment.
Federal Executive and Legislative Branch Oaths
In the United States, the oath of office for the President is specified in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The oath may be sworn or affirmed (in which case it is called an affirmation instead of oath). Although not present in the text of the Constitution, it is customary for modern presidents to say "So help me God" after the end of the oath. For officers other than the President, the expression "So help me God" is explicitly prescribed, but the Judiciary Act of 1789 also explains when it can be omitted (specifically for oaths taken by court clerks): "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath."
The Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) also specifies:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, newly elected or re-elected Members of Congress – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, federal judges and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President.
Federal Judiciary Oaths
In the United States, federal judges are required to take two oaths. The first oath is this:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. [So help me God.]
The second is the same oath that members of Congress take: I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]
Federal statute specifically says that the latter oath "does not affect other oaths required by law."
Assuming all of this oath-taking and affirmation hasn't devolved into empty and meaningless ceremony wouldn't we have more accountabilty? Who enforces these oaths and affirmations?
God? The President? The Congress? The Courts? Checks and Balances? Anybody else?
Tell it to Snyder, the petty tyrant in Michigan.
He pissed on 2 constitutions.
The cut and paste crap doesn't really make it.
I firmly support the Second Amendment rights of all Americans to water their tree of liberty with the blood of crazy ass libertarians.
Inalienable rights are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness: not watering the tree of liberty( that would alienate the inalienable wouldn't it?)
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
As four Supreme Court cases and nearly twenty lower federal court rulings have made clear, the Second Amendment pertains only to citizen service in a government-organized and regulated militia (remembering that militiamen were expected to bring their own firearms), the regulation of which specifically appertains to Congress in Article I, Section 8.[9] The abysmal performance of civilian militias[10] in the War of 1812 essentially ended the government's use of such forces to meet military emergencies. Millett and Maslowski noted that "after the War of 1812 military planners realized that no matter how often politicians glorified citizen-soldiers ... reliance on the common militia to reinforce the regular Army was chimerical."[11] As [Page 352] Ehrman and Henigan observed, the "history of the state militias between 1800 and the 1870s is one of total abandonment, disorganization, and degeneration."[12] Instead, the government came to rely on professional military forces that were expanded in times of emergency by the military draft. The select or volunteer militias used in the Civil War, which date to colonial times, were institutionalized and brought under federal military authority as the National Guard early in the twentieth century.[13] Further, even if the Second Amendment did pertain to personal weapon ownership or use outside of militia service, the Court has refused to incorporate it via the Fourteenth Amendment,[14] unlike most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, thereby limiting its relevance only to federal action. In any case, the Second Amendment provides no protection for personal weapons use, including hunting, sporting, collecting, or even personal self-protection.
Despite the definitive nature of constitutional reading, historical lessons, and court rulings, some legal writers, publishing primarily in law journals, have sought to spin out other interpretations of the Second Amendment.[15] These authors have succeeded in finding legitimacy for a variety of erroneous and even nonsensical arguments concerning the meaning of the Second Amendment through publication in law journals. Arguments advanced in these publications have, in turn, seeped into the public press. When this happens, it may easily magnify what might otherwise be a minor distortion. To take one example, an article in the Wall Street Journal reported in late 1999 that one of the key factors leading to new [Page 353] academic interest in the Second Amendment was "a recently unearthed series of clues to the Framers' intentions."[16] Two examples are cited in the article. One is an allegedly recently discovered "early draft" of the Second Amendment authored by James Madison where "he made "The right of the people' the first clause [of the Second Amendment] ... ."[17] The second is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to an English scholar, John Cartwright, in which "Jefferson wrote that "the constitutions of most of our states assert, that all power is inherent in the people; ... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.'"[18] Despite the article's claim to the contrary, neither of these quotes is "recently unearthed," nor are they "clues" to the meaning of the Second Amendment. The first of these quotes has been known to constitutional scholars for decades, as it was part of Madison's original Bill of Rights resolution, offered in the House of Representatives on June 7, 1789 and has been a part of publicly available congressional records from that day to this. It has also been cited in past writings on the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights.[19] It is thus no new discovery, nor does it alter what is already known about the Second Amendment.[20] http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
Be that as it may, the Second Amendment was incorporated and is now a Right extended to the people. It doesn't matter one wit how you feel about it. Here is the case http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1521
The Founders' argument to anything can only carry so much weight. It is nice to know, but they were also slave drivers. They hold no absolute moral or philosophical high ground in my view. We can refer, but we are certainly not slaves to their way of thinking. We must think about what is right for our time and, at least on that point, I will agree they got it right by making the Constitution as a frame that can be adjusted and improved over time.
As far as weapons are concerned, every object is a potential deadly weapon, including the human body. Banning this one or that one will not eliminate anger, rage, violence or death. Let's work on that. Teaching people how to resolve disputes and control anger. That is going to go a lot further towards reducing gun violence. Happy campers don't blow people away.
the US produces 40% of all weapons sold internationally
we as a nation must tolerate weapons to stay in business
Again. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. It's pretty simple
Lying to get what you wanted and then turning around and changing the tune after getting caught is a shit argument.
Rants the recently chastised wench who is often noted whining about others not double spacing. I didn't bother reading any of that eyeball busting crap. They may be the most profound and wonderful words in the world, I don't care.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Were it not for the people having the right to keep and bear arms, there would be no one to organize in a militia. The second amendment was written into the Constitution to protect the individuals right to protect themselves.
Wrong. The Bill of Rights was actually a bill of Federal Limitations. This means that those rights were not individual rights until a process called incorporation. You will find basic information located here: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
And I gave you the case that incorporated the Second Amendment.
The right to protect ourselves is a natural right granted to us by our creator. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a control on the government to keep it from infringing on those rights.
if you are going to discuss natural rights in regards to the constitution or any document then you will need to start here: http://constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm
There actually is a reason to this rhyme and no, we don't make this shit up as we go.
the question has been settled by the McDonald and Heller cases
It IS an individual right...
And it WAS a right before it was added by the Bill of Rights....the Constitution does not GRANT rights.....it merely enumerates them.......Rights are granted by creation....
I stated that.
yeah...I was agreeing, and adding Heller, to your example of McDonald...
Actually, you went back and added into your post.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
oh...the dialog box is too small, I usually save as I type so I can see what I'm typing...you must have read it before I was finished....
I do - and I own a couple.
Thank you. Maybe we do have some common ground.
just don't bring your weapon to the picket line - it doesn't belong there.
the nimrod tea party seems to disagree - and at some point it is inevitable - if they keep that up - there will be a shooting on the protest line.
Well, I guess there probably were weapons legally brought to Tea Party protests. There were also no rapes and assaults like there have been at the occupy protests.
Gun Rights and Tea Party Activists Encourage People To Bring ...
thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/01/03/75694/guns-tea-party/Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jan 3, 2010 – A black man is president!” — what set this protest apart was that there “were plenty of handguns and rifles displayed.” The local Tea Party and a ...
Gun-toting Tea Party activists rally in Montana | Reuters
www.reuters.com/.../us-montana-teaparty-idUSTRE7240EH2011030...Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Mar 4, 2011 – HELENA, Montana (Reuters) - About two dozen gun-toting Tea Party activists staged a rally at the Montana statehouse on Friday to support the ...
I will stipulate guns were brought to Tea Party rallies. Free American citizens legally brought firearms to a rally supporting the Constitution. I fail to see a problem.
I do, however, see a problem with rapes and assaults occurring at occupy protests.
You will stipulate
well that's nice.
On one of those occasions the protest was in close proximity to a Presidential speaking engagement. Some of the protesters came armed with either AR-15s or M16s - one or the other.
This was a deliberate attempt to intimidate the President of the United States.
I posted an invitation to any and all right wing whack jobs to bring their protest here, to Vermont.
They could show up with their guns,
I'll show up with mine.
and around the corner - anonymous friends
ready with m-80s
POPPOPPOP
and when the smoke clears . . . . we'll see who's left standing . . .
You are right. The man LEGALLY carrying the rifle was within his rights to carry. The man LEGALLY carrying the rifle hurt no one. The man LEGALLY carrying the rifle was black.... Am I to assume you hate black people with guns?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5yTHx-fmK0
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-17/politics/obama.protest.rifle_1_protesters-weapons-assault-rifle?_s=PM:POLITICS
I don't hate black people
I don't hate guns
I don't hate guns in black peoples hands
I don't believe anyone has any business carrying a weapon at a protest. Protests often result in confrontation of one kind or another. they often include civil disobedience.
Protests and guns are like drinking and guns - they don't mix.
It is inevitable that if people show up at protests with guns, and make a habit of it - someone is going to get shot.
Progressive, anti American protests, similar in thinking and tactics to the Occupy protests, result in confrontations in one kind or another. The Occupy protest is an inherently violent and anti societal protest and confrontational and needs to have violence to further its goals. I think you are right that a bunch of drunken, drug using, anti American, anti societal, police hating, business hating, malcontents will eventually become violent.
Tea Party rallies were just that. They were affirmations of American values, not protests seeking to destroy the capitalist society, or the Constitutional protection of individual liberties that the Occupy mobs seek.
There were no confrontations at Tea Party protests......guns or no guns
guns and protests
just like guns and alcohol
don't mix