Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 03:00 PM Aug 2012

High Cost of Willfully Misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment

The horror that played out during the recent midnight massacre inside a Century theater in Aurora, CO is but the latest example of the danger posed to our safety and our very lives by the radical right's expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.

On June 28, 2008, that view --- that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected to service in a state militia --- became the law of the land, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court's hard right quintet's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller ("Heller&quot --- a 5-4 decision that ignored precedent, history and basic rules of constitutional interpretation.

Heller not only elevated the profits of the domestic small arms industry above the ability of government to protect our safety, our general welfare, our domestic tranquility and our very lives, but provided a disturbing new context to the eerily prescient 1991 warning provided by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) when he likened the confirmation of Clarence Thomas as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to a game of "Russian Roulette"...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9424
51 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
High Cost of Willfully Misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment (Original Post) SecularMotion Aug 2012 OP
Yes, you and many other anti-gun extremists willingly misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Clames Aug 2012 #1
gun owners do all the murdering of people using guns. talk about extremist nt msongs Aug 2012 #2
many gangs use gejohnston Aug 2012 #4
Corporate personhood. Callisto32 Aug 2012 #7
That probably made more sense in your head before you typed it. Clames Aug 2012 #10
One reason I don't take blogs that seriously gejohnston Aug 2012 #3
for 222 years... ileus Aug 2012 #5
Can't take guns away bongbong Aug 2012 #6
Can't force feed anti-gun extremists logic. Clames Aug 2012 #8
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #9
And again. Clames Aug 2012 #11
you know he's at his wits end Equate Aug 2012 #16
poor guy, gejohnston Aug 2012 #17
Once again, we find the antis sputtering, impotent rDigital Aug 2012 #12
Scared bongbong Aug 2012 #37
LOOoooooooooOoooooooL rDigital Aug 2012 #38
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #39
LOL rDigital Aug 2012 #41
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #42
LOL rDigital Aug 2012 #43
Just keep laughing your way to the poorhouse! Simo 1939_1940 Aug 2012 #45
Take another big rip, man. Callisto32 Aug 2012 #13
LOL x google! bongbong Aug 2012 #15
You keep using "wimpy liberal" in quotes Union Scribe Aug 2012 #19
Maybe he's implying he's not really a liberal? NT Trunk Monkey Aug 2012 #22
Try google bongbong Aug 2012 #26
I rather suspect I've forgotten more about logic than you will ever know. Lizzie Poppet Aug 2012 #29
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #30
Your should putput downdown your namesakenamesake. Lizzie Poppet Aug 2012 #31
Project much? bongbong Aug 2012 #33
QED... Lizzie Poppet Aug 2012 #34
Well, you do kinda keep reinforcing the state of your own ignorance with every single post. eqfan592 Aug 2012 #40
Sigh ... more of the same same-same. Straw Man Aug 2012 #36
I think it's more of an allergic reaction. n/t HALO141 Aug 2012 #14
Do you really believe Jenoch Aug 2012 #18
Wish more people realized how unnecessary -- and IMO harmful -- public toting is. Hoyt Aug 2012 #21
But despite the idiot Jenoch Aug 2012 #24
Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #32
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #25
When did I do that? Jenoch Aug 2012 #28
Poor, poor bongo. aikoaiko Aug 2012 #20
I though this was going to be another thread about Chicago ManiacJoe Aug 2012 #23
So now Brads blog is some sort of souce? rl6214 Aug 2012 #27
I'd rather listen to our forefathers than Earnest Canning or BradBlog. Here's what they say: trouble.smith Aug 2012 #35
I like your collection of quotations. Common Sense Party Aug 2012 #44
thanks- (Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557) trouble.smith Aug 2012 #46
Out of Context. oldsarge54 Aug 2012 #47
not really out of context trouble.smith Aug 2012 #48
Can you read a whole sentence. oldsarge54 Aug 2012 #49
You're mixing up your forefathers. trouble.smith Aug 2012 #51
I think it's pretty obvious who is willfully misinterpreting the second amendment. bad sofa king Aug 2012 #50
 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
1. Yes, you and many other anti-gun extremists willingly misinterpret the 2nd Amendment.
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 03:12 PM
Aug 2012

Sad that the Brady Campaign states they understand it's an individual right on one website and post the complete opposite on another. Hypocrites? I think so.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
3. One reason I don't take blogs that seriously
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 03:21 PM
Aug 2012

just like I don't take talk radio and cable chat shows that seriously.
especially then the cite equally biased sources or just parrot conventional wisdom.
One, Heller did not overturn any precedent. If so, please show the cases.
Two, He did not get even understand the Miller case.
Three, he changes the subject in the middle and starts talking about right wing militias
Four, he cites other blogs and the VPC of all people as objective sources.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
6. Can't take guns away
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 03:55 PM
Aug 2012

The gun-relgionists would starve, since they'd be too scared to go to the supermarket.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
9. LOL
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 04:08 PM
Aug 2012

There is no "logic" to gun-relgionists' beliefs, they are strictly emotional beings. Scared of everything. Their Precious is a subject of worship.

Gun-relgioniosts hear NRA Talking Points, AKA Big Lies, so often they actually believe them.

 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
11. And again.
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 04:38 PM
Aug 2012

There is no "logic" to anti-gun-relgionists' beliefs, they are strictly emotional beings. Scared of everything. Their Moral Whip is a subject of worship.

Anti-gun-relgioniosts hear Brady Campaign/MAIG/VPC/LCAV/MMM Talking Points, AKA Big Lies, so often they actually believe them.




 

Equate

(256 posts)
16. you know he's at his wits end
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 09:08 PM
Aug 2012

because of that sputtering. I refuse to answer him anymore, it's just gibberish coming from him.

 

rDigital

(2,239 posts)
12. Once again, we find the antis sputtering, impotent
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 04:42 PM
Aug 2012

and grasping at straw men. Foam at the mouth, screech your screed and stomp your feet all you want. It's entertaining for the rest of us.

I laugh the hardest when you guys fail so hard on grade school English language syntax. Antis refuse to acknowledge the difference between a dependent and independent clause. How do you even tie your own shoelaces, let alone drive a car?
Keep misinterpreting the 2A, and Heller, McDonald and I will laugh all the way to the gun show!


The RW is in lockstep with each other and we Dems are divided 50/50 or maybe even 60/40. The 2A is going to be quite safe for some time. Keep on truckin'!

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
37. Scared
Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:45 PM
Aug 2012

> It's entertaining for the rest of us.

You guys "won". How much do you love watching other gun nuts shoot up theaters?

Gun relgioniosts are a strange group of scared children.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
39. LOL
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 12:44 PM
Aug 2012

I understand that you gun-religionists laugh at dead Americans, but you should try to cover up the obviousness of your hatred.

 

rDigital

(2,239 posts)
41. LOL
Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:16 PM
Aug 2012

Screech your screed, and enjoy your impotence on the subject at hand. No cause would want the kind of posts you make associated with them. Toby Hoover would throw you out of her office and Sarah Brady would do the same. Trash postings are self defeating.


 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
15. LOL x google!
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 04:58 PM
Aug 2012

THREE gun-relgionists responded to my latest post. I wonder why?

Oh, wait, I know. I didn't laugh at them. Here ya go, tough-guys-too-scared-to-walk-in-public-without-a-gun:



And for good measure, here's another laugh at you guys from a "wimpy Liberal" who is so tough that he doesn't need guns to walk around in public:

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
19. You keep using "wimpy liberal" in quotes
Wed Aug 15, 2012, 12:03 AM
Aug 2012

as though someone here had said it. If so, please link to it. Otherwise, you're being quite dishonest.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
29. I rather suspect I've forgotten more about logic than you will ever know.
Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:46 PM
Aug 2012

Care to put that to the test? Bring your "A" game.

If you have one...

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
31. Your should putput downdown your namesakenamesake.
Fri Aug 17, 2012, 02:52 PM
Aug 2012

You have yet to advance anything remotely resembling a cogent, rational argument in support of your position, preferring instead to indulge in hilarious amateur psychoanalysis, playground-level ad hominem, and a cringeworthy parade of fallacy. Smarter than you? Obviously...but that's not exactly an accomplishment I'd use as a resume' highlight.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
34. QED...
Sun Aug 19, 2012, 02:16 AM
Aug 2012

Just like clockwork: hilarious amateur psychoanalysis. Pure comedy gold.

If you ever actually manage a coherent, rational argument, let me know, kid.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
18. Do you really believe
Tue Aug 14, 2012, 11:44 PM
Aug 2012

that all people that are pro RKBA carry concealed weapons with them at all times? I have two brothers who are cops who rarely carry while off-duty. My father and Iraq war veteran nephew have CCWs and never actually carry a weapon. I don't personally have a CCW because I've never felt the need to have one although I do own several handguns.

Why do you post all the emotional hyperbole and insults instead of engaging in an adult discussion?

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
24. But despite the idiot
Wed Aug 15, 2012, 05:20 PM
Aug 2012

in the Nevada movie theater recently, those with CCWs do not cause a lot of trouble. You are barking up the wrong tree again. Stopping the gun toting in public by criminals is where you should focus your attention.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
32. Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.
Fri Aug 17, 2012, 03:06 PM
Aug 2012

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2011 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2011 there were 512,625 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there were exactly four (4) murder convictions. Out of the general population there were 553 convictions for murder in its various forms.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/10/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:

Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2010, there were 98 justifiable homicides, of
which, 50 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 48 were felons killed by police.


In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 50 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shootings are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus four innocents killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
25. LOL
Thu Aug 16, 2012, 03:24 PM
Aug 2012

> Why do you post all the emotional hyperbole and insults instead of engaging in an adult discussion?

You mean like posting a bunch of completely unprovable anecdotes that prove absolutely nothing like you did?

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
27. So now Brads blog is some sort of souce?
Thu Aug 16, 2012, 04:35 PM
Aug 2012

And of course no comment on this important blog post either.

 

trouble.smith

(374 posts)
35. I'd rather listen to our forefathers than Earnest Canning or BradBlog. Here's what they say:
Sun Aug 19, 2012, 04:20 AM
Aug 2012
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." Samuel Adams

Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others. ... The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. Alexander Hamilton

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the_real_object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? Patrick Henry

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. Patrick Henry

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them Zachariah Johnson

By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important. John F. Kennedy

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.George Mason

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
.
George Mason,George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."— Tench Coxe, 1788.

'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. Nunn versus State of Georgia

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes; we need them every hour. George Washington


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. Noah Webster


The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]













oldsarge54

(582 posts)
47. Out of Context.
Wed Aug 22, 2012, 07:34 AM
Aug 2012

Hate to tell you this, but most of your quotes are out of context. Henry Lee's quote specifically referres to the militia. Thomas Jefferson, was for all intents and purposes, was an anarchist that believed that no government was the ideal state, along the lines of what Thomas Paine wrote in "Common Sense." Below is the actual Rules and Orders for the militia from 1775. Perhaps it will give you a clue of what milia meant to the founding fathers. This is redacted a bit, but the full original is available on line.

Rules and Orders For Regulating the Militia Of the Colony of NEW-YORK: Recommended by the PROVINCIAL CONGRESS, by several resolutions, recommended to their constituents the expediency of forming themselves into companies, and choosing their officers in the manner following.
RESOLVED. That it be recommended that every county, city, manor, town, precinct and district, within this colony, (where the same is not already done) be divided into districts or beats, by their respective committees, in such manner that out of each may be formed, one military company, ordinarily to consist of about eighty three able bodied and effective men, officers included, between sixteen and fifty years of age.
Resolved secondly, That in each company so to be formed, that be chosen (in the manner herein after mentioned) one captain, two lieutenants, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one clerk, one drummer, and one fifer.
I. That the several companies so form'd, be joined into regiments, each regiment to consist of not less than five or more than ten companies
II. II. That a Major General be appointed and commissioned by this Congress to command the militia of the colony of New-York.
III. That one Colonel, one Lieutenant Colonel, and two Majors, and Adjutant and Quarter-Master, be commissioned by this Congress for each regiment.
VI. That every man between the age of sixteen and fifty, do with all convenient speed furnish himself with a good musket, or firelock, and bayonet, sword, or tomahawk, a steel ram-rod, worm, priming-wire, and brush fitted thereto, a cartouch box containing twenty three rounds of cartridges, twelve flints, and a knap-sack, agreeable to the directions of the Continental Congress; under the forfeiture of five shillings for the want of a musket,
VII. That each company (not minute men) do meet the first Monday in each month, and spend at least four hours in each of the said days to perfect themselves in military discipline.
VIII. That the Colonels and commanding officers of each regiment, do assemble and exercise their respective regiments at least two days in every year, at some convenient place to be fixed upon by the Field Officers.
XIX. That in case of an alarm, invasion, or insurrection, every subaltern and soldier, is immediately to repair, properly armed and accoutred to his colours, or parade (which parade shall be understood to be the habitation of his Captain, unless otherwise ordered. That every officer, non-commissioned officer, and private, who shall neglect, or refuse to perform his duty in this case required, shall be adjudged by a general court martial.
XXV. That when the militia, as well minute-men as others, in case of invasion, or insurrection, shall be called out on actual service, they shall be subject to the same rules and orders, as directed and ordered by the Continental Congress of the associated colonies, held at Philadelphia, on the 10th day of May last, for the better goverment of the Continental troops.

 

trouble.smith

(374 posts)
48. not really out of context
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 04:41 AM
Aug 2012

their statements were quite unequivocal-the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and it is not to be infringed upon. The militia is to be comprised of citizens in order to prevent the formation of a large standing Army which they rightly considered to be incompatible with liberty; furthermore, the unifringed right to keep and bear arms is also necessary to check a government that has become incompatible with liberty which they rightfully understood to be the natural tendency of any government. Their reasons for the second ammendment are clear and their language is unambiguous. Their quotes are not taken out of context. That the militia has been largely replaced by a large standing army only strengthens their arguments.

oldsarge54

(582 posts)
49. Can you read a whole sentence.
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:47 AM
Aug 2012

Light Horse harry lee's statement specifically called for a organized militia, not just every tom dick and harry carry a gun. The subject of the single sentence that comprises the 2nd Amendment is "a well regulated militia. The only consistent person commenting about fear of the government was Thomas Jefferson, who, like Thomas Paine, did not believe in any government beyond that of the township. In other words, anarchists. When they people referred to an army, or enemy government, they were referring to the British. The NRA has cherry picked the words of the founding fathers to build a case that the government is the enemy. Outside of shooting cops, revenue agents, and eviction notice servers, has this ever actually happened, the armed citizenry's taking on the oppressive US government. This sort of thinking is what makes the Lubbock judge scary.

 

trouble.smith

(374 posts)
51. You're mixing up your forefathers.
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 09:40 PM
Aug 2012

Light Horse Harry was actually Henry III whose father, henry II, was a 2nd cousin of Richard Henry Lee who said: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
He also said: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Was he a proponent of the militia? Of course. Does he suggest that the RKBA is not an individual right? No. Nowhere in any of that can it be construed that this man thought the RKBA was not a right of the people themselves; what's more, it is clear from his words what he feared. That his fears have come true does not lend credibility to your position; rather, it justifies mine.

to summarize, you are looking at one tree and ignoring the forest around it and you aren't looking at that tree very clearly. You're the cherry picker here, not me and not the NRA. Our forefathers were clear on the 2A as was their intent. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

bad sofa king

(55 posts)
50. I think it's pretty obvious who is willfully misinterpreting the second amendment.
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 08:10 AM
Aug 2012

That would be the anti-second amendment crowd and yes, there may indeed be a high cost for it.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»High Cost of Willfully Mi...