N.R.A. Oliver North blames shooting on Ritalin

[WhatWall]

The 2nd Amendment contains the leading phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
(This reminds me of the song "Danny Boy".)

In those old times there was fear of a large standing army being abused by gov't against citizens.

IMO, if this part of the 2nd Amendment had not been stated then this issue would be much clearer and not had turned out to be so much of a legal complexity in U.S. history.

So true.

The concern about the danger of a standing army is now moot because that army is armed far beyond the means of citizens to defend themselves from it. When the 2nd Amendment was written, citizens possessed firearms equal to or better than those of the standing army.

However, interpreting the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing a state's right to a well regulated militia is a bit of a stretch since the Bill of Rights acknowledges the natural rights of people. That interpretation requires a basic misconception of the Bill of Rights, as well as the Constitution. And of course the writings of the men who crafted & signed the Constitution and later added the Bill of Rights are clear on the subject: The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

If that amendment had been more clearly stated in terms of current understanding, then the current attempts to invalidate it would probably fall back on the more general proposition that "The Constitution is an old, outdated and, therefore, inapplicable document."

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

The Second Amendment wasn't just adopted as a necessary expediency - it is the ultimate expression of trust that a government can invest in it's citizenry. And who were these citizenry that the government anticipated to be invoking this right? To be practical it was men. And where did these men come from? They came from women. Every man was some woman's son so what has changed so fundamentally that men can no longer be trusted with this right? Women's trust in men being displaced with a trust in a government.

Government didn't used to compete for a man's place in the family but now it most certainly does. Not only does it compete but it attacks and derides man's place in society, especially white men, the majority of whom crafted the Second Amendment and continue to support it.

If you hate the Constitution and desire to replace it with something else then you must hate the Second Amendment and pitch the forces of feminism, racism and any other ism against it.

LRH wrote in a Flag Order that all Sea Org members should be instructed in weapons and judo. For all the dedication to following command intention, I always thought it curious that for some reason this never seemed to make it onto any Sea Org check sheet. In LRH's day, personal guns were permitted on base, in berthing, with no controls, but there was no consistent effort to apply this order from my experience. I think under LRH and DM the attitudes about this are basically very elitist. Other religions have trained their people in these things but it was out of a concern for their personal welfare and not just as body guards to protect the organization and it's leader. Now they use hired outside guns as body guards and security. Somehow I have a difficult time imagining DM wanting to be surrounded by the same people he has subjected to "heavy ethics" being proficient in martial arts and weaponry. I think Scientology, and I mean DM, supports the Second Amendment but not out of trust for his "citizenry" but out of a desire that the right not be denied him personally.

Our own politicians behave much the same way. They get their concealed carry permits, they have their own personal security force, they live in a secure enclave, but they do not want these things for the rest of the unwashed masses - all the time the net result of their collective actions is to contribute to the breakdown of society.

And that is really the crux of the matter. These people know what they are creating and they don't want it to be armed.

 

[WhatWall]

The Second Amendment wasn't just adopted as a necessary expediency - it is the ultimate expression of trust that a government can invest in it's citizenry. And who were these citizenry that the government anticipated to be invoking this right? To be practical it was men. And where did these men come from? They came from women. Every man was some woman's son so what has changed so fundamentally that men can no longer be trusted with this right? Women's trust in men being displaced with a trust in a government.


<snip>

I construe it as the ultimate expression of distrust in government. Since the primary purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government, reserving all powers not specifically granted to that government to the people and the states, I'd say that the entire Constitution is based on distrust of a central (federal) government.

The Constitution doesn't grant anything to the people or states. At the consent of the people, it grants the federal government specific and limited powers. In this sense, it is a very radical document defining a radical form of government: A government in which power flows from the bottom up instead of top down.

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

I construe it as the ultimate expression of distrust in government. Since the primary purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government, reserving all powers not specifically granted to that government to the people and the states, I'd say that the entire Constitution is based on distrust of a central (federal) government.

The Constitution doesn't grant anything to the people or states. At the consent of the people, it grants the federal government specific and limited powers. In this sense, it is a very radical document defining a radical form of government: A government in which power flows from the bottom up instead of top down.

This is correct, but for the people who constructed and established the Second Amendment it was an expression of trust in the citizenry to use the right to prevent tyranny. So just based upon the way politicians vote in congress now and how their constituents vote half of the country trusts government more and half trusts the citizenry more. That is the level of deterioration of trust in the citizenry since the country's founding.

This is also consistent with the IRS statistics on who pays taxes. Last I checked their website, about 47-48 percent of all people who file a tax return pay either no taxes or get some kind of tax credit.

Women used to look to men as their safety net and personal defense force and mothers raised their sons that way. Now they look to government to fill those needs and men who oppose the concept of transference of assets and labor for that purpose are the enemy. The Second Amendment is also the ultimate expression of independence which conflicts with this kind of value system.

Therefore, the Second Amendment is anathema to socialism.

 

[Type4_PTS]

This is correct, but for the people who constructed and established the Second Amendment it was an expression of trust in the citizenry to use the right to prevent tyranny.

Oh, so the Second Amendment isn't just for hunting then?



















Just kidding!

 

[strativarius]

Many of the World War II generation came from farms where firearms were an integral and respected part of the culture. And after the war many didn't go back to the farms. They spread out over the country and produced the baby boomer generation. The WWII generation and their offspring still greatly retained the firearm ethic. So what has changed? I think the best analogy for the US is it has become Israel. We are trying to pretend that schools can still be innocent in a world surrounded by violence and insanity. Like Israel we are in some kind of protracted vague state of war where things can be disarmingly quiet for a while only to wait for the next inevitable bombing.

Baby boomers grew up active in sports, fixing their own cars, using their hands and heads to develop skills and hobbies. Sure they started using computers and becoming immersed in technology but the extent of this during their critical early developmental years was Dragnet and Star Trek on a black and white TV with rabbit ears. For children today that has largely been displaced by some kind of screen. I'm not sure what is more destructive, the content or the sheer hours logged. There is no baseline for many children to refer back to for socialization and sanity.

I don't think I need to go down the obvious litany of things that are radically different with kids today but they are only a FB message or a text away from an ecstasy party with Mexican gang members looking for someone to groom as a sex slave. Baby boomers grew up hitch hiking all over the country but if a parent lets their kid go to the park unattended now they get busted by social services for reckless endangerment.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/utah-free-range-parenting-law_us_5ab8b3dce4b0decad04b91c7

It's a whole new world. Trump is right - we need armed adults in the schools.

As a fully paid up member of the baby boomer generation I fully concur with practically everything you've written in this excellent post. Not too sure about the last line though, but well, nothing's perfect.

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

As a fully paid up member of the baby boomer generation I fully concur with practically everything you've written in this excellent post. Not too sure about the last line though, but well, nothing's perfect.

"Nothing is perfect".

That is what this is all about isn't it?

But some people think that perfection is possible and even if it isn't, it should be. So I have a hypothetical:

There is an active shooter in progress and you have the power to freeze time. A teacher is in a room full of kids. What do you do?

A) You give the teacher a cell phone.

B) You give the teacher a gun.

C) You take away the teacher's gun and give them a cell phone.

D) You take away the teacher's cell phone and give them a gun?

To my thinking this pretty much defines where the whole debate is at.