The NRA is a con

[Wallet]

I grew up in a rural area and at 14 was an inadvertent member of the NRA. Why? Because it was the 1970's and the NRA's primary purpose then was gun/hunter safety and not the ridiculous PAC it is today. Although guns and hunting were not really for me it was and is still somewhat popular here. I don't really have a big issue with it as it seems to be a bit passé anyway.

But the question I usually ask when someone rails on the 2nd amendment is "Can you recite the first line?" That's right, you see in 1791 the United States had a ragtag army decimated by the English and in addition had to be concerned about Native American attacks on the frontier, the French or English on the North and the Spanish on the South. A well regulated, emphasis on regulated, militia is not some 9th grade educated MAGAtard with an AK47 or some other automatic weapon, see the difference? We have regular army now and have had for a couple of centuries. Perhaps the the time has come to amend this outdated bullshit to fit the real world and join the the rest of the industrialized nations where gun crime is significantly less.

One problem with your analysis, the whole pretense of a well regulated militia, armed citizens was to deter the overreach of the federal government not protection from outside threats.

In addition the right to defend oneself, armed defense being seen as a basic right, stemmed from their roots based in English common law. The King as well as the English Church tried on several occasions to disarm the population.

Written in the constitution is the means to amend it. Knock yourself out.

In the mean time, if you don’t own a weapon, you should buy one. If the Left has their way there won’t be much left in the way of law enforcement to deter crime.

 

[UsualName]

I grew up in a rural area and at 14 was an inadvertent member of the NRA. Why? Because it was the 1970's and the NRA's primary purpose then was gun/hunter safety and not the ridiculous PAC it is today. Although guns and hunting were not really for me it was and is still somewhat popular here. I don't really have a big issue with it as it seems to be a bit passé anyway.

But the question I usually ask when someone rails on the 2nd amendment is "Can you recite the first line?" That's right, you see in 1791 the United States had a ragtag army decimated by the English and in addition had to be concerned about Native American attacks on the frontier, the French or English on the North and the Spanish on the South. A well regulated, emphasis on regulated, militia is not some 9th grade educated MAGAtard with an AK47 or some other automatic weapon, see the difference? We have regular army now and have had for a couple of centuries. Perhaps the the time has come to amend this outdated bullshit to fit the real world and join the the rest of the industrialized nations where gun crime is significantly less.

This is absolutely correct and the way the 2nd amendment was meant to be applied, as it was applied from 1791 until 2008.

 

[UsualName]

One problem with your analysis, the whole pretense of a well regulated militia, armed citizens was to deter the overreach of the federal government not protection from outside threats.

In addition the right to defend oneself, armed defense being seen as a basic right, stemmed from their roots based in English common law. The King as well as the English Church tried on several occasions to disarm the population.

Written in the constitution is the means to amend it. Knock yourself out.

In the mean time, if you don’t own a weapon, you should buy one. If the Left has their way there won’t be much left in the way of law enforcement to deter crime.

There is no need to amend the constitution. The second amendment stood , as written, until 2008. The remedy is to reverse the dc v Heller ruling from 2008 and reinstate the original meaning.

 

[Wallet]

There is no need to amend the constitution. The second amendment stood , as written, until 2008. The remedy is to reverse the dc v Heller ruling from 2008 and reinstate the original meaning.

The second amendment stood as designed with SCOTUS via the Heller decision affirming the original intent of the Founders

 

[Bugenhagen]

The second amendment stood as designed with SCOTUS via the Heller decision affirming the original intent of the Founders

It's nonsense militarily to ignore the preamble so not what the founders intended. Individuals without training to work in disciplined co-ordination (militia) have on average no chance whatsoever against trained military units.

 

[Wallet]

It's nonsense militarily to ignore the preamble so not what the founders intended. Individuals without training to work in disciplined co-ordination (militia) have on average no chance whatsoever against trained military units.

Try reading what the Founders wrote and you’ll understand their concerns. An armed populace is a deterrent against many threats.

Regardless of what you and your leftist friends wish, the 2nd amendment stands and has been kept intact by the Supreme Court.

 

[Cuddles]

Try reading what the Founders wrote and you’ll understand their concerns. An armed populace is a deterrent against many threats.

Regardless of what you and your leftist friends wish, the 2nd amendment stands and has been kept intact by the Supreme Court.

except righties conveniently ignore the "well regulated militia" bit and emphasize the "the rights....shall not be infringed" bit handing out guns like candy to an untrained and quite honestly undeserving population.

 

[Wallet]

except we conveniently ignore the "well regulated militia" bit and hand out guns like candy to an untrained population.

You want to exert your opinion on the amendment and not how the amendment was intended. Again, the Authors wanted an armed population for several reasons, plus they viewed the ability to defend themselves as a God given right.

 

[Cuddles]

You want to exert your opinion on the amendment and not how the amendment was intended. Again, the Authors wanted an armed population for several reasons.

It's the literal interpretation of what it says. A well regulated militia (yes made up of the people) necessary for the security of a secure state, the rights of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now is the 2nd part contingent upon the 1st? In my opinion it is as it sets the whole premise for the right to bear arms. Cons choose to view these as separate

 

[UsualName]

The second amendment stood as designed with SCOTUS via the Heller decision affirming the original intent of the Founders

No. Not even close. When Scalia wrote the Heller decision he did so from a textual stand, not an originalist stand. He was very far away from Madison. The original meaning stood for 217 years.