Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: OWS and Second Amendment Rights

Posted 2 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

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mom-calls-9-1-1-asking-for-permission-to-shoot-intruders-before-killing-one-using-12-ga-shotgun/

113 Comments

113 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by assasin7 (29) 2 years ago

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

[-] 3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

An unarmed man is easy to make a slave.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

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

  • 1,630 World Total
  • 711 United States 41%
  • 143 China 8.2%
  • 71.9 Russia 4.1%
  • 62.7 United Kingdom 3.6 %
  • 62.5 France 3.6%
  • 54.5 Japan 3.3&
  • 48.2 Saudi Arabia 2.8%
  • 46.8 India 2.5%
  • 46.7 Germany 2.8%
  • 37.0 Italy 2.3%

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

  • Lockheed Martin USA 35,730 33,430 78
  • BAE Systems UK 32,880 32,540 95
  • Boeing USA 31,360 32,300 49
  • Northrop Grumman USA 28,150 27,000 81
  • General Dynamics USA 23,940 23,380 74
  • Raytheon USA 22,980 23,080 91
  • BAE Systems Inc. (BAE Systems, UK) USA 17,900 19,280 100
  • EADS Trans-European 16,360 15,930 27
  • Finmeccanica Italy 14,410 13,280 58
  • L-3 Communications USA 13,070 13,010 83
  • United Technologies USA

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

[-] 1 points by assasin7 (29) 2 years ago

i agree completely

[-] 1 points by jbob (74) 2 years ago

fyi for all you glenn beck haters out there. the blaze is a GB website.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by jbob (74) 2 years ago

arent surprised about what?

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

too.ncis is a rightie.

He's been trying not to be too pushy about it.

[-] 1 points by jbob (74) 2 years ago

ncis as in the TV show? i have no idea what your mean?

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

typo - toonces

author of the post

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

In Switzerland, almost everyone has an M16 at home, and their murder rate is virtually zero.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

SIG 522, not M16......the SIG is a better weapon

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

I can't speak for OWS.

But as for me, I invite you to break into my house and find out...

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by occupyitnow (31) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

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?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

I keep my gun loaded for crazy

[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 2 years ago

Sure, why not? I support it, anyway....

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

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."

[-] 1 points by TrollDestroyer2000 (29) 2 years ago

click click.......................................................................

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Of course. We are the 99%

[-] 0 points by kickthemout (83) 2 years ago

[-] 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.

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I think you'll find that support for Obama is tenuous at this point.

[-] 1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"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.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

He never mentioned regulating guns on his campaign.

Also the healthcare reform won't take effect until 2014 and entails a lot of things.

[-] 1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"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.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Because he said change was coming? It was almost as good a slogan as the 99%

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

Well yeah, he even signed the dodd frank which was supposed to regulate corporations but hasn't for some reason.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Well I don't know about that but I hope you see where I was going.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

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!"

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Sounds about right

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

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]

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

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]

[-] 1 points by flatd (5) from New York, NY 2 years ago

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.

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Your interpretation ignores the entire constitution.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

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.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

that "regulated" means "Trained" .......not as in a legal prohibition....

[-] -2 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

"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

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

I thought that question was answered in the affirmative a couple of times already.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the right to bare arms in a state militia was so states can defend their rights against a federal government

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the colonies did not completely trust each other

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the civil war would have been different without the states rights to bare arms in a militia

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

As would the shooting of Giffords and thousands of murders injuries and fatal accidents that happen in this country every year.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

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

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Simply not being the worst doesn't make it good.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

life is dangerous......considering the number of firearms in circulation..it's a very rare occurrence in most areas

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

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.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

you mean "bear " arms, not "bare" arms , unless you're referring the the first wookie.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

homophones shall be my falling

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

Thats' O.K.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

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?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

not sure bearing arms is practical with the growing population

if everyone has a gun . someone will shot at someone else

[-] 1 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

automobiles

[-] 1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

if people are armed, they can defend themselves.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

by harming others

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

There are plenty of awful, bad people in this country that should indeed be harmed.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

there are only people

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

You obviously haven't had the pleasure of dealing with some of the animals who call themselves people.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

all people are animals

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Exactly. And some should be shot.

[-] 1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

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

[-] 1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

my neighbor is in the room next door

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

just kill me already

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

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?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

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:

  1. Good people actually know how to use them properly and safely, and
  2. bad people can't get hold of them as easily as they now do.

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.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

of course not

people are human

they get violent

good guys go bad

disarm the US police force

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

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

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

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?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

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?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Tell it to Snyder, the petty tyrant in Michigan.

He pissed on 2 constitutions.

The cut and paste crap doesn't really make it.

[-] -1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

I firmly support the Second Amendment rights of all Americans to water their tree of liberty with the blood of crazy ass libertarians.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 year ago

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]

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

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

[-] 1 points by occupyitnow (31) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the US produces 40% of all weapons sold internationally

we as a nation must tolerate weapons to stay in business

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

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.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

"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.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

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.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

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....

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I stated that.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

yeah...I was agreeing, and adding Heller, to your example of McDonald...

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Actually, you went back and added into your post.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

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....

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I do - and I own a couple.

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Thank you. Maybe we do have some common ground.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

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.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

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.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

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 ...

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

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.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

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 . . .

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

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

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

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.

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

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.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

There were no confrontations at Tea Party protests......guns or no guns

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

guns and protests

just like guns and alcohol

don't mix