More on: Second Amendment Rights
April 17, 2013
Today the US Senate sent us a clear and plain reminder that our society lacks critical thinking skills, and that few are really engaged in civil discourse.
What troubles me most – as a dues paying member of the NRA – is that Wayne LaPierre – who apparently found a convenient way to avoid military service when his number was called – is busy manufacturing incendiary stories about ‘big brother’ and attacks on ‘Second Amendment Rights’.
Wayne is playing into a base of folks who didn’t do so well in school and may not really understand or appreciate what our forefathers were thinking back in 1791 when they proposed the Second Amendment.
If Wayne would just take the time to read the Second Amendment, he would likely learn that our Second Amendment – when it was adopted in 1791 – preceded the invention of: the electric light; the automobile; the internet; and the modern firearm.
That’s right. In 1791, the right to ‘keep and bear arms’ referred to single shot, black powder firearms.
If the NRA spokespeople and their posse want to preserve the rights granted under the Second Amendment, then I say: “Single shot, black powder!”
Rhetoric and debate: Over!
Second Amendment Rights
April 10, 2013
I found this in my SPAM folder today:
=============================================
Please find an important message from Senator Mitch McConnell below:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for joining me in defending our right to bear arms. Right now, President Obama’s allies in the anti-gun lobby are doing everything in their power to take away our Second Amendment rights.
The right to protect our family and ourselves from whatever threats we may encounter is precious, and we must defend it from Washington liberals.
They want to prevent law-abiding Americans from possessing a firearm while making it easier for criminals to use one against us.
As the Republican Leader in the Senate, I am working with fellow conservatives to fight back on the left’s attacks but I need your help to do so. If you believe that our Second Amendment rights are worth fighting for, will you please donate $5 to our cause?
The Second Amendment ended the “gun debate,” and it’s time for Democrats to understand that. Make no mistake about it; the far-left are using their allies in the Senate, the media, and White House to work to limit your ability to own a firearm.
Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters have been called “stupid” by Piers Morgan, and “heartless mother*****” by Jim Carrey. This vitriol from the left must be combated.
For Freedom,
Mitch McConnell
=================================================
Vitriol? How about Incendiary? The blatant lies about “… taking away Second Amendment rights” really need to stop. I haven’t seen any evidence of anyone messing with Second Amendment rights.
I’m an NRA member; I enjoy target shooting. But, until December 14, 2012, I didn’t know what an AR-15 rifle was. I assumed a rifle which looked like that was a military weapon. I was amazed to learn that this AR-15 was readily available in sporting goods stores, and had become popular among some residents in the Northeast, even across the U.S.
Curious, so I signed into YouTube, typed AR-15 into the search box, and it returned 7.6 Million hits!
I clicked onto a few of the video links, and it opened up a whole new world for me!
Can you imagine a young person who likes to play violent video games – say, Resident Evil 4 – clicking onto this YouTube video?
This is hunting? Home protection? Target shooting?
Second Amendment rights?
Let’s be honest with each other if we ever expect to have a reasonable and rational resolution to this debate…..
The Second Amendment
January 23, 2013
It is true: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is part of our U.S. Bill of Rights.
Historians tell us that our Second Amendment was adopted in December 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The text of the Second Amendment is very simple: “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.”
It is so simple that it has caused 200+ years of discussion, debate and diatribe.
It is widely accepted that our Second Amendment was informed by the English Bill of Rights (1689).
Each seems to illuminate and continue an existing right at the time they were adopted.
The English Bill of Rights is slightly more expansive and specific than our Second Amendment.
One phrase from England jumps out as they describe a definition of “Arms”: “…That the Subjects …may have Arms for their Defence (sic) suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”
Our friends from across the pond may have been prescient.
However, it is unlikely they knew back in the 17th Century that the category of Arms would expand in the future to include: Gatling Guns; Machine Guns; Nuclear Arms; Howitzers; Bazookas; Anti-Tank and Anti-Aircraft guns; Sawed-off shotguns; Military Assault Weapons; and Semi-Automatic Hand Guns.
It would seem that in their effort to be brief and succinct, our U.S. Fore Fathers may have sold us short.
Now, let the Walrus be first to acknowledge: We do have rules and laws in the U.S. which generally prohibit ownership of some of these categories by people for home defense, target shooting and hunting.– including Nuclear Arms, Howitzers and Bazookas.
In 2013, those of us who feel the need to keep and bear arms are currently limited by some regulations on the types of arms which we are able to own, possess and use.
New York State recently passed some regulations which limit possession, ownership and use of certain semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
The hue and cry from the margin is huge. What has been categorized as “passionate opposition” to defining which weapons and accessories are inappropriate appears to be emotionally informed.
In a January 16, 2013 poll by Sienna College, banning assault weapons and magazine clips of more than seven bullets in NYS was supported by a margin of 73% to 26%.
Did NYS Governor Cuomo and the NYS Legislature violate the purpose and intent of our Second Amendment?
More on: Gun Control
January 14, 2013
I’m a New York State resident, and I’ve been following the recent activities of our legislators in Albany.
I applaud the bi-partisan work of the members of our New York State Assembly; the members of our New York State Senate; and NYD Governor Andrew Cuomo, to act swiftly and deliberately to negotiate and pass comprehensive gun control legislation in January 2013.
Assault weapons have no place in civilian hands in a civilized society. High capacity magazines are a necessary evil for law-enforcement and military purposes; they have no place in any civilian application.
No different than ownership and/or operation of a motor vehicle; possession, ownership and/or operation of a firearm should be predicated by background and identity checks; testing; registration and licensing; plus proof of liability insurance.
The frequently heard argument that the Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is an emotionally charged and incomplete line of reasoning.
There is nothing stated or implied in the Second Amendment which tells us possession, ownership and or use of firearms should be unfettered and outside the purview of laws and regulations carefully designed to protect the interests of the greater public good.
It is unfortunate that the immediate reaction to any talk of ‘gun control’ emanates from (often overzealous) Second Amendment advocates.
The basis of our Second Amendment — which was adopted in 1791 — likely had very clear and relevant context to the 18th century, and to the events which preceded the Revolutionary War.
Now, more than 2 centuries later, it would seem to be helpful to have a rational, detached and thoughtful public discourse to include all facets of a 21st century centric debate on firearms and what makes the most sense for the majority of our fellow citizens today.
I have not met or communicated with any balanced and rational individuals who want to deprive any responsible American adult of their right to own and use firearms.
Nor, have I met or communicated with any balanced and rational individuals who want to deprive any responsible American adult of their right to own and operate motor vehicles.
It seems that through careful analysis and regulation, we have been relatively successful keeping unqualified and/or irresponsible individuals from operating motor vehicles.
I wonder: Why would any responsible and/or qualified American adult believe that we couldn’t accomplish the same outcomes with firearms?
Most gun crimes in New York City and the lower Hudson Valley involve weapons illegally brought into our state. Do we want to continue the illegal trafficking of guns into New York?
History tells us that — in 1791 — gang violence, assault weapons and drug trafficking had not yet been invented. Multi-shot hand guns did not appear until the early 19th century, and did not become commercially viable until 1856 when Smith and Wesson produced the first cartridge revolver.
Laws and regulations developed and designed around the technology, society and economy of the 18th century no doubt have some validity for our current society, yet may need to be carefully examined to see how and where some ‘tweaks’ might make them more relevant for today.
Thank you to Governor Cuomo and our New York State Legislators for taking some bold first steps to bring our state gun laws into compliance with the Information Age. There is more to be done, but you have accomplished some solid reform in January 2013.
Bravo!
walrus51 