How the NRA Rewrote The Second Ammendment

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

MWHistorian wrote:
The term "the people" always refers to individual citizens in the Constitution.

Yes, 'the people' kept the guns, in order to use them as part of state militias.

The Revolution was sparked over the British trying to confiscate guns.

Picking out that one instance as the spark of the war is junk history.

Their intention was that every American be armed in case armed resistance was necessary against a foreign or domestic government.

Is that the intention when this version was originally drafted?
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

That means that the guns have to be able to compete against common military guns of the day.

Surely if it includes modern rifles able to compete, it should also include other hardware? Is there a constitutional right to own a predator drone?

**Relapse**

Jihadin wrote:
You know Mattel, a toy company, makes the shoulder stock with the M16 at that time right?

When I was in boot camp and infantry school back in the 80's, my rifles had the Mattel logo stamped on them. When I was at San Onofre, we joked about being GI Joes with our toy rifles.
That's one story I know from personal experience Snopes got wrong.

**LordofHats**

sebster wrote:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

People also miss the point that at the time, the Founders had no belief in the need (or security) of a standing army, making militia more essential to national defense.

Is there a constitutional right to own a predator drone?

Even if they did, who could afford one? The damn things cost $4 million (just for the drone, you still need a nerd who plays too much Flight Simulator

).

**friendlycommissar**

sebster wrote:
It should be noted, of course, that one issue in there is the failure of the pro-gun side, who remain fixated on symbolic, bad laws. When those laws do nothing to resolve gun violence while jerking around legal gun owners, well it's no wonder the blow back is more extremist gun owners.

I don't expect a bunch of hand-wringing nancies to write good legislation. There are responsible, mature gun owners in congress. They could write good legislation. Republicans could write good legislation that actually works for responsible gun owners. But it's become all about having a perfect rating from the NRA, and that means supporting the lunatics who think the founding fathers meant for the 2nd amendment to a bulwark against tyranny. I mean, seriously, George Washington put down an armed insurrection against the federal government in his first term of office. I'm pretty sure the founding father weren't laying the seeds for fringe radicals to engage in anti-government terrorism.

**MWHistorian**

"The shot heard around the world" is junk history?
And yes, I should own a drone. I'd totally love to have one.

**LordofHats**

MWHistorian wrote:
"The shot heard around the world" is junk history?

Arguing that taking away guns was even remotely a priority for the British or that it was a major reason for starting the Revolution is junk history. All the tax acts, the Intolerable acts, that silly law that gave British officials a free pass for any crime committed in the colonies, those were all decent reasons, but none of them really involved guns.

And yes, I should own a drone. I'd totally love to have one.

Well come on. Who wouldn't want to own a drone. Personally I'd rather have my own Abrams, but dreams are dreams

**MWHistorian**

LordofHats wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
"The shot heard around the world" is junk history?

Arguing that taking away guns was even remotely a priority for the British or that it was a major reason for starting the Revolution is junk history. All the tax acts, the Intolerable acts, that silly law that gave British officials a free pass for any crime committed in the colonies, those were all decent reasons, but none of them really involved guns.

And yes, I should own a drone. I'd totally love to have one.

Well come on. Who wouldn't want to own a drone. Personally I'd rather have my own Abrams, but dreams are dreams

Taking away guns was darned right a priority for the British. That was the sole reason they went to Concord. They heard people were creating an armory and went to take the guns away. The Minute men met them on the field and refused to disband. Boom. Start of American Revolution.

**Breotan**

sebster wrote:
Yes, 'the people' kept the guns, in order to use them as part of state militias.

In many places, people kept guns to hunt with and to defend themselves against the more warlike Indian tribes. Militia weapons were often stored in armories like we do now. The whole thing about Paul Revere and his midnight ride ("To arms! To arms! The British are coming.") was because the British regulars were marching to seize the militia's armory at Concord.

sebster wrote:
The Revolution was sparked over the British trying to confiscate guns.
Picking out that one instance as the spark of the war is junk history.

True enough. It was mainly the push to wring money out of the Colonies that precipitated the Revolution. Boston Tea Party, anyone? The battles of Concord and Lexington were when the Revolution went "hot".

sebster wrote:
Is there a constitutional right to own a predator drone?

No. The Second Amendment has always been interpreted to be about small arms such as rifles and pistols, not military ordnance. Even hand grenades wouldn't be interpreted as being covered by the Second Amendment by any except the hard-core fringe. I don't think I've ever seen in proffered that Timothy McVey had a Second Amendment right to make a fertilizer bomb.

**Jihadin**

Everyone can own a drone. Buy a remote control airplane and/or vehicle.

**LordofHats**

MWHistorian wrote:
That was the sole reason they went to Concord.

Seizing a militia armory is not the same thing as taking away guns from citizens. Even if it was it's still junk history because you're willfully ignoring all the other reasons that sparked the conflicts at Lexington and Concord that had nothing to do with guns.

**sebster**

LordofHats wrote:
Even if they did, who could afford one? The damn things cost $4 million (just for the drone, you still need a nerd who plays too much Flight Simulator ).

That's just because they're government and all inefficient. Get some private sales going on and the market will drive that down to the price of basic family sedan!

**LordofHats**

Breotan wrote:
In many places, people kept guns to hunt with and to defend themselves against the more warlike Indian tribes. Militia weapons were often stored in armories like we do now. The whole thing about Paul Revere and his midnight ride ("To arms! To arms! The British are coming.") was because the British regulars were marching to seize the militia's armory at Concord.

There's also the reason why the British only moved against the armories in Massachusetts. Like only one state was building a militia

**Ensis Ferrae**

MWHistorian wrote:
The Revolution was sparked over the British trying to confiscate guns.

Calling it "The Revolution" is more junk history than hand picking one instance of "Gun Grabbing liberals" (to put it into modern parlance)

As for the verbage of the 2nd, it doesn't specifically outline that protection for "guns", but rather "arms" as at the time swords were still being used. Since people here are enjoying throwing wild assumptions on our founding fathers, perhaps they dreamt of a Grimdark world where jack-booted thugs drove up and down the road in their heavy tanks shouting at people and hitting them with their swords.

**sebster**

friendlycommissar wrote:
I don't expect a bunch of hand-wringing nancies to write good legislation. There are responsible, mature gun owners in congress. They could write good legislation. Republicans could write good legislation that actually works for responsible gun owners. But it's become all about having a perfect rating from the NRA, and that means supporting the lunatics who think the founding fathers meant for the 2nd amendment to a bulwark against tyranny. I mean, seriously, George Washington put down an armed insurrection against the federal government in his first term of office. I'm pretty sure the founding father weren't laying the seeds for fringe radicals to engage in anti-government terrorism.

Absolutely.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MWHistorian wrote:
"The shot heard around the world" is junk history?

You know how they were called the Intolerable Acts? And not the Acts That We Didn't Like But Were Tolerable Until They Tried To Take Our Guns?

Yeah, junk history.

And yes, I should own a drone. I'd totally love to have one.

Nuclear bomb? There's a few hedge fund managers that could afford one, and a couple who are crazy enough to actually do it.

**Breotan**

Massachusetts was building up their militia in response to the British military build-up. They were doing it in an "in your face" way, too. Other colonies had militias and armories (some more loosely meeting that definition than others) but they weren't agitating the way Massachusetts was.

**LordofHats**

Breotan wrote:
Other colonies had militias and armories (some more loosely meeting that definition than others) but they weren't agitating the way Massachusetts was.

That, and the Massachusetts Government Act, which made the formation of a militia within the state a violation of British Law (not that anyone in Massachusetts bothered following that act for more than five minutes anyway). Contrary to the silly narrative portrayed by some circles, the British generally acted within accordance of what they believed the law to be. Yes, Massachusetts was seen as a greater agitator than other states, but they moved on the militia in Massachusetts because the militia there wasn't formed by the appointed authorities but by a provisional government. It had nothing to do with them think people in MS shouldn't have guns, or even that they shouldn't have a militia.

We just didn't like their laws

They were written over tea. No real American does serious business over tea

**sebster**

Breotan wrote:
True enough. It was mainly the push to wring money out of the Colonies that precipitated the Revolution. Boston Tea Party, anyone? The battles of Concord and Lexington were when the Revolution went "hot".

Yep.

No. The Second Amendment has always been interpreted to be about small arms such as rifles and pistols, not military ordnance. Even hand grenades wouldn't be interpreted as being covered by the Second Amendment by any except the hard-core fringe. I don't think I've ever seen in proffered that Timothy McVey had a Second Amendment right to make a fertilizer bomb.

Sure, and the question is why. If the intent was that the people should have the capability for armed insurrection, why would you stop merely at making sure people got to own guns?

As you say, the Second Amendment has always been interpreted to be about small arms, but shouldn't that tell people how arbitrary an interpretation that really is?

**morpheuschild**

friendlycommissar wrote:
morpheuschild wrote:
an interesting article, to be sure. but it doesn't seem to say much for one side or the other. the placement of just one word could change the context of what follows, really. 'an unfettered individual's right...'

That's why I posted it. I thought it was fairly balanced and objective, just documenting how the NRA has shifted the narrative.

i lean against the fence on gun control, really. i am all for an individual's right to keep, and carry, a weapon for the purposes of self-defense. fortunately, i live in a place where that is allowed. look at countries with general bans on handguns. what percentage of the populace of those nations posess handguns? and for what purpose? in a country with such a ban, the only people who would seek to own such a gun for purposes other than defending themselves are, shall we say, 'active' criminals. unfortunately, this means that any civilian who who owns such a firearm for the purpose of defending themselves is also a criminal, legally speaking.
so, while you might say i am pro-gun, i am also in favor of the regulation of guns. anyone who has no intention of using a gun for criminal purposes should not be opposed to their weapons being registered.

This is pretty much how I feel. I'm a gun owner, and I don't have any issues with some degree of regulation. I find the idea of gun prohibition noxious (especially since I live more than 25 minutes from any police response), but sensible regulations like waiting periods and maybe even licensing don't bother me. But you know what does bother me? How really out there anti-gun control advocates have gotten. We have less gun control now that at any point in my life, and it's getting harder and harder to find pro-gun people who aren't making with the crazy "overthrow the tyranical government" talk, which makes me nervous. 99 times out 100, when someone (left or right) says they're ready to take up arms against the state, I find myself suddenly rooting for the state to win that fight.

And then there's this stuff, and not only do I not want to be associated with clowns like these morons, but these people are so stupid and irresponsible with their firearms that they end up making a compelling argument for licensing. I mean, even if these guys don't have a criminal record and aren't technically mentally incompetent, there really has to be some way to deal with punk teens who bring scary looking assault rifles into fraking fast food joints. Who does that? And then people defend this nonsense like the poor diners who were terrified to see Mutt and Jeff here with their fakie AKs are the ones in the wrong. Just mind-boggling.

Or the fruitcakes who think Sandy Hook was some kind of hoax created by the government to enact gun control. It disturbs me how often i hear people entertain ideas like that with no awareness that they are completely nuts. My big concern is that the NRA, who don't consider sane or rational at all (especially that Wayne LaPierre, that dude is nuts), so completely dominates the pro-gun side of the conversation and is just making it impossible to have sensible gun regulation, which only makes it more likely we'll have irrational and bad laws.

a while back, here in the states, there was some hubbub about a law which would basically cause the fbi to be notified if an individual purchased x number of 'assault rifles' (which is a somewhat dubious term, in and of itself) in x number of days. i don't know about you, but if i bought a bunch of guns all at once, i wouldn't be offended if an authority figure showed up on my doorstep asking what i needed those guns for...

Doesn't the FBI get notified if you buy a bunch of fertilizer? If we're going to check on dudes buying fertilizer, we should definitely check on the guys buying crates of semi-autos. God, can you imagine if something like the Mumbai attack occurred in America? People would lose their ****.

sweet jesus... what were those two idiots thinking, that there might be a need for their rifles at the freakin' chipotle grill? in a state with concealed carry, and inside a relatively small building, pistols ought to suffice... and this would be in a place where an outbreak of violence would be ludicrously unlikely anyways...
that said, now it's time for a humorous personal anecdote...
early last autumn, my niece visited my parents' home so that my father could teach her how to shoot, as she wanted to go a-hunting during deer season. about a half an hour of that afternoon was spent hauling gun cases out of the closet and figuring out which gun was in which case. my dad actually owns so many rifles, not one an 'assault rifle', that he can't keep 'em straight as to which is which. kinda sad, methinks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Other colonies had militias and armories (some more loosely meeting that definition than others) but they weren't agitating the way Massachusetts was.

That, and the Massachusetts Government Act, which made the formation of a militia within the state a violation of British Law (not that anyone in Massachusetts bothered following that act for more than five minutes anyway). Contrary to the silly narrative portrayed by some circles, the British generally acted within accordance of what they believed the law to be. Yes, Massachusetts was seen as a greater agitator than other states, but they moved on the militia in Massachusetts because the militia there wasn't formed by the appointed authorities but by a provisional government. It had nothing to do with them think people in MS shouldn't have guns, or even that they shouldn't have a militia.

We just didn't like their laws They were written over tea. No real American does serious business over tea

nope. we do business in 'murica over golf. which really isn't any better, if you ask me.

**friendlycommissar**

morpheuschild wrote:
sweet jesus... what were those two idiots thinking, that there might be a need for their rifles at the freakin' chipotle grill? in a state with concealed carry, and inside a relatively small building, pistols ought to suffice... and this would be in a place where an outbreak of violence would be ludicrously unlikely anyways...
that said, now it's time for a humorous personal anecdote...

It's this thing these morons are doing where they're "aggressively" demonstrating their right to "bear arms" by making use of open carry laws. It's like political activism. Like pretty much all political activists in the post-internet age, I think they're complete dopes.

early last autumn, my niece visited my parents' home so that my father could teach her how to shoot, as she wanted to go a-hunting during deer season. about a half an hour of that afternoon was spent hauling gun cases out of the closet and figuring out which gun was in which case. my dad actually owns so many rifles, not one an 'assault rifle', that he can't keep 'em straight as to which is which. kinda sad, methinks.

When my dad passed away he had 34 rifles and six pistols in his collection. And then on top of that he had another twenty half-assembled rifles. It was such a mess to sort through it all. I inherited all of them, but after his memorial service I invited all of his best friends back to his house and gave all but one of them (my grandfather's M1-Garand he carried in Normandy, which I pretty much have to keep) away. Mostly because maintaining a collection of 40 antique guns is just way too much effort.

**LordofHats**

(my grandfather's M1-Garand he carried in Normandy, which I pretty much have to keep)

There's a reason my dad and I have been maintaining my grandfather's 1911

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Two points for people to consider:

1) Why should we care what the founding fathers thought about the future? They couldn't predict the internet and guns in the 1780s could only fire one round a day or something like that!

Well the founding fathers did predict future problems, which is why there is that 2/3 clause to repeal an amendment if congress and the senate agree. So, yeah, it's highly unlikely, but the second could be changed.

2) Gun control in the USA: ever since I read about the reconstruction period after the civil war, my views on gun control have changed. I learned that most gun control efforts were by southerners trying to stop African Americans returning from the war, getting their hands on weapons, and a concentrated effort to disarm the black community. I read about the lynchings, the massacres, and learned that most gun control practices were rooted in racism. Obviously, I'm an outsider, but if I were an American (God forbid!

) I'd be deeply suspicious about gun control. Most of it seems to be rooted in moral panics.

**Chongara**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'd be deeply suspicious about gun control. Most of it seems to be rooted in moral panics.

You'd deeply suspicious of just about all laws in america.

**Wolfstan**

I would like to propose that the American Constitution be recognised as an official religion

When you guys start discussing what was said or what was meant it's like watching a discussion on religion

**CptJake**

sebster wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. The idea of such a thing was utterly inconceivable.

The right to own a weapon would have, in their minds, fallen under natural and inalienable rights. It was assumed and thus never viewed as being necessary to be further clarified. We don't see a need to legislate someones right to breath.

I'd say it wasn't as much taken for granted, but more that it was not even considered. It's important to realise that one individual with a musket is damn near close to irrelevant in terms of any potential military presence he can have. Asserting that a private individual should be denied a musket would be just a puzzling as asserting a private individual must not be allowed a musket. It's just a non-issue, something not addressed by that clause for the same reason that it doesn't address the right of men to own and wear wigs.

So, when times change, and rifles with the accuracy, range and rate of fire are developed so that one man really can wreak havoc, well it should come as no surprise that reading and re-reading that one clause, and endlessly debating the placement of that comma, and reading all manner of bits of bad history looking to prove one side or the other doesn't address the basic reality that that one clause says nothing about whether private individuals should be allowed to own guns.

You do know some private citizens owned artillery pieces and warships/armed ships back then? Muskets for hunting were not the issue. You do also realize the muskets for hunting in many cases were a lot better than the mass issued infantry muskets of the day, right?

**Ensis Ferrae**

LordofHats wrote:

That, and the Massachusetts Government Act, which made the formation of a militia within the state a violation of British Law (not that anyone in Massachusetts bothered following that act for more than five minutes anyway). Contrary to the silly narrative portrayed by some circles, the British generally acted within accordance of what they believed the law to be. Yes, Massachusetts was seen as a greater agitator than other states, but they moved on the militia in Massachusetts because the militia there wasn't formed by the appointed authorities but by a provisional government. It had nothing to do with them think people in MS shouldn't have guns, or even that they shouldn't have a militia.

We just didn't like their laws They were written over tea. No real American does serious business over tea

What does Boston have to do with Mississippi?? IIRC, MS wasn't even a state in the US back then

But really, at that point in time, I think that region was under French control, so I could see the Brits not wanting people in MS having guns

And CaptJake has the right of it... If you were wealthy enough back then, you literally could own whatever armaments you wanted to spend the money on (and probably have it monogrammed or some such nonsense)

**Co'tor Shas**

What I'm always amazed at is how people think the 2nd amendment gives you unlimited access to guns. This has always irritated me just for people lack of knowledge. The 2nd amendment does not give you unlimited access to guns, just as the 1st amendment doesn't give you entirely free speech.

**agnosto**

The fist amendment doesn't protect hate speech just like the 2nd is not the go ahead nod from 200 years ago to own an arsenal. Keep and bear arms doesn't mean start a neighborhood arms race.

**Co'tor Shas**

Exactly. Any right can be limited if there is a "clear and present danger".

**Frazzled**

Breotan wrote:
Politico wrote:The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun.
There was no regulation on private gun ownership in 1791 when the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, certainly at the Federal level. And the States didn't get around to firearms legislation until the early 1800s, starting with Kentucky in 1813, I think. So this statement which leads the article is patently wrong.

Originally there was no limitation of arms, as in you could own cannon.
Can I have a Bofors 40mm please? The mosquitoes are getting uppity again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
No, it means that they would never ever conceive of why anyone would ever regulate personal firearms and that such an idea was ludicrous. insane. mentally slowed. addled. and many other colorful descriptors.

Unregulated gun ownership was the status quo and nobody saw the need to cement that.

To be fair. They lived in an age when the average rate of fire was 3 rounds a minute.

Yeah, so?

I find it odd people keep bringing up that fact. its totally irrelevant. Especially when you consider the casualty rates for wars have gone down immensely over the years, as have bullets fired to targets hit.

A good German made (as in technology brought over by German immigrants) would only pull 2 rounds a minute. But you could shoot...Straight!

Texas state regional IDPA is Saturday yea boyyyy 250 contestants including apparently one Neanderthal sporting an Aggie Dad hat...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:

Yeah, so?

Why do we think the founding fathers intentions matter? Given that they're so removed from current weapons technology, we have no means of knowing what they'd have thought about it. I.E. What they wanted shouldn't matter in the gun debate.

This statement has almost nothing to do with a sane relationship with the Bill of Rights. Did you just fall out of bed and miss over 200 years of jurisdprudence?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
easysauce wrote:

so put that card away. Calling that kind of argument "fair" is completely the opposite of true.

I'm not. I'm asking why it matters what the Founding Father's thought. Obviously we've been forced to just pick and choose as time has gone on. So debating their intentions is a farce. A vain attempt to appeal to authority so removed from us that it can't be considered valid.

Lord of Hats appears to be unfamiliar with how the US legal system works and the Constitution is interpreted. Educate yourself young Padiwon with The Book Of FREEDOM THAT is the US Constitution.

SCOTUS the High Lords of...FREEDOM.

the Bill of Rights, God's To Do list of FREEDOM!

Bacon, the only food equal to FREEDOM FRIES and approved by Washington himself.

**d-usa**

Even SCOTUS rulings don't really matter. They are only the law until the SCOTUS rules differently the next time.

All laws are flexible and can be changed.