Archive

Archive for the ‘Gun Rights’ Category

Watered-Down Gun Bill Was Murdered…. Suspect “Harry Reid”; Guilty As Charged!

filibusterThe Senate voted 54-46, on Wednesday April 17, to pass the bi-partisan (watered-down) background check bill written by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin. The passing of this weak form of legislation should have been an exercise of legislative ease. After all, the bill was full of loop-holes that would have made it pretty useless in the grand scheme of the bill’s intended purpose.

Constitutionally, the bill passed the Senate and should have been on its way to the House, but thanks to the parliamentary rule in the Senate, a bill receiving 54 votes was blocked using the asinine Senate Filibusterer. The Filibusterer (Senate Rule XXII) effectively overrides the constitutional requirements of passing bill in the Senate and replaces the constitutional standard with a rule that is of the making of the Senate alone. This distortion of civic rules and conditionally established protocol led to the Senate’s rules trumping the Constitution itself.

Oh, how the Founding Fathers would weep if the were here today. The fact is the Constitution requires a simple majority to pass a bill out of the Senate, but the Filibuster forces a 60 percent requirement to even debate the bill, much less pass it. One would think that the Constitution would not be so easily circumvented, but you would be wrong. Circumventing the Constitution has been a way a commonality ever since the election of George W. Bush (you know the really dumb Bush) see Patriot Act for proof. passed

The bill was supported and rejected in a bipartisan fashion. The Republicans who voted for the bill were Sens. Pat Toomey (PA), Mark Kirk (IL), Susan Collins (ME) and John McCain (AZ). The Democrats who voted against it were Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Max Baucus (MT), Mark Begich (AK) and Mark Pryor (AR). Who says that the Senate doesn’t work in a bipartisan fashion. The senate works in a bipartisan way when it comes to ignoring the will of “We The People” and in the interests of the rich and corporations. Can you say Oligarchs? Sure you can! Read more…

Advertisements

Uber-Second Amendment Clarification: Argument One/Two/Three!

2ndA 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.”
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Is the Second Amendment hard to understand? Can those who support unregulated gun rights and/or an armed citizenry for the purpose of fighting the United States government be right that the Founding Fathers feared the possibility that this American government (the government in which they created with checks and balances) would become tyrannical and the only way to preserve freedom from our government is to have an armed citizenry?

Can those that want gun regulations be correct in stating that it was a means to establish a militia approach to the need for defense of the US instead of a peacetime army? Let’s take a peak at this to get an understanding or not! Can they both be wrong in their assertions? Can the true history of the arguments that lead to the writing of the Second Amendment be found?

Americans and pundits have been twisting themselves into pretzels in order to pull their pre-determined definition out of the Second Amendment text. There are a myriad of sites that will purport that this well-crafted amendment clearly states that Americans should have unfettered rights to gun ownership; and they would be wrong. The syntax itself clearly establishes a condition to this particular amendment and the rights it grants. With this assertion, what are arguments for or against unfettered gun rights?

The Second Amendment, of the Bill of Rights, is indeed a well-crafted sentence. By that, I mean its syntax permits only one reasonable interpretation of the authors’ meaning “In order to establish a well regulated militia, for the defense and security of a free state, the rights to of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed”. The meaning is clear when a sensible person reads the Second Amendment on its face and even more clarity is obtained via a reading of the arguments behind its adoption. A look at the arguments of those that support the idea that the Second Amendment is about an unfettered personal  right to own and bear arms is in order to point out the fallacy within. Read more…

Rethink gun laws, NOW!

ar-151

AR 15 is not needed by John Q. Public

The carnage and incomprehensible violence that happened in Connecticut shocked the nation and brought the topic of gun control to the nation’s attention. The correlation between the senseless slaughter of those beautiful elementary kids and guns are a natural response by all that have a moral foundation in peace and love. In reflection of the tragedy, the collective WE all demanded that “assault weapons” be banned and called for the re-institution of the loophole riddled assault weapons ban.

The CT shootings led to everyone shouting from the rooftops about the need to regulate or even outlaw certain “assault weapons” as a cure to the evil that happened at Sandy Hook. The event actually left me quite numb and to be honest, I am still quite numb in many ways about that inhuman mass shooting. With that being said, I dare to say that no matter how tragic that shooting is the reality is that it has very little to do with just gun ownership. It has to do with a lack of gun regulations in terms of nozzle velocity, firing capacity  and gun insurance.

I assert that the proponents of gun laws are taking the wrong stance. The arguable connection between the horrible event at Sandy Hook and “assault weapons” only feeds the argument of those on the gun-side that contend that “the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”. The connection between guns and the horrific mass shooting is as contaminating as the belief that “the answer to gun violence is more guns”; both are wrong-headed.

The two opposing positions are equally poisoning the topic of gun regulations by posturing, hyperbole, division, and political demagoguery. Appealing to the other sides sense of good morality on the subject of guns will only harden their stance in opposition of yours.  The problem lies in the fact that we naturally oppose that which we do not already agree with and this is a matter of human nature.

As Stanford University psychologist Leon stated A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Such is the reaction of those who argue their unrestricted right to guns. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” Such is the reaction of those who argue their unrestricted gun rights. One can relate this to the theory of “fight or fleet”; this holds true with predators and data. Relating mass shootings to the need for gun control weakens the argument somewhat. America needs to look at gun regulation/control at the level of what is at the bare minimum level of responsibility that all gun owners should accept. Read more…

Taking a real look at the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Second Amendment

The right to bear arms?

As passed by the Congress: “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.” As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State.

When looking at the Second Amendment, in its totality, one can get only one understanding from it; that is if one has an understanding of constitutional history. It has essentially has two parts that make up its whole. I find it amazing that most people, especially those I call the “gun-stupid”, only choose to read and adopt the second part of the Second Amendment. Its intent is utterly clear when one reads the entirety of the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are the written text explaining the arguments for and against the constitution thereby seeking to persuade the states to ratify the Constitution. See; http://tinyw.in/y3IV. The contention that surrounded the Second Amendment was not based on an argument over the rights of people to have arms; it had/has its roots in a disagreement over whether or not this nation would have a standing army or not.

Based on my interpretation of the Second Amendment and the Federalist Papers (29), I get the following meaning from it “In order to have a well regulated militia in the defense of the United States (or states at that time) the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.  Now this understanding of the 2nd Amendment is a far cry from what the gun-stupid would argue today. If you really want to get a better understanding of what the Founding Fathers meant you will really have to read the Federalist papers, but if you just want a quick rundown here it goes.

The Founding Fathers argued heavily about the whether America should establish of an army during times of peace and at the end of their debate it was settled, that America would not have a standing army during times of peace. This decision would remain as policy until the early 20th century when Congress broke from the original intent of the Founding Fathers and established a standing army. The original Constitution allowed for a standing army for a period of TWO years (which is why today, military appropriations happen every two years; it is a means to circumvent the Constitution) and that was how it was until the early 20th century. It has long been established that the Fathers feared a standing army. They were well versed historians which had seen that countries with standing armies were often times over-thrown by its military, which soon oppressed its people. This has happened  time and time again throughout history, and thus the Founders agreed that America would not have a standing army. Of course this approach to the military would not last, but this was the agreement at the time. Read more…

%d bloggers like this: