The Virginia Tech Tragegy--Enough is Enough!

[Guest guest]

Myth of the Second Amendment

Current mood: infuriated

Category: News and Politics

 

Today is a very sad day for this nation. Enough is enough! How many

more lives does it cost to die from gun related violence and crime,

and how many more school shooting rampages does it take for our

citizens to say to our government: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH??? We need a

complete reform in our gun control law!!! The NRA and the misled

public always use the Second Amendment as an arguement about the

" civilian's " right to carry firearm.

 

 

HERE'S IS WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT " REALLY " SAY THAT THE NRA WANT TO

KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM KNOWING THE TRUE ESSENCE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

 

 

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

 

What does the Second Amendment Mean?

 

How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by

claiming: " Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the

Second Amendment " ? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our

Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to " keep and bear

arms " and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the

philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's

opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.

 

The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and

historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation

about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic

distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result

is a Second Amendment " mythology " which has been difficult to counter.

 

The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent

 

The Second Amendment states: " 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. " The NRA tends to omit the

first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to

a " well-regulated militia. "

 

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own

" militia " - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as

part-time soldiers. The militia was " well-regulated " in the sense that

its members were subject to various requirements such as training,

supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away

from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to

protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal

rebellions.

 

The " militia " was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply

another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th

century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males

between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire

population of the nation.

 

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army,

controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George

III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the " anti-Federalists "

feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias

were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second

Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming

the state militias.

 

The Second Amendment Today

 

In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism,

largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to

protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th

century.

 

Today's equivalent of a " well-regulated " militia - the National Guard

- has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends

on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control

laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws

invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military

service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second

Amendment issues.

 

The Second Amendment in the Courts

 

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been

settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307

U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the " obvious

purpose " of the Second Amendment was to " assure the continuation and

render possible the effectiveness " of the state militia.

 

Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment

twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and

upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980.

Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held

that the term " well-regulated militia " refers to the National Guard.

 

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment

issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an

ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for

law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was

sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the

U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the

ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear

arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October

1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this

ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.

 

In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to

the Second Amendment as " the subject of one of the greatest pieces of

fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special

interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s)

misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had

far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a

citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man. " Burger also wrote,

" The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that

it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any

kind of weapon...urely the Second Amendment does not remotely

guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a 'Saturday

Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There

is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and

state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such

firearms... "

Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have

addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty

cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts

decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear

arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in

its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and

the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no

mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle

Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds

in several years.

The Renegade Decision: U.S. v. Emerson

On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R.

Cummings restored a domestic abuser's firearms, citing the Second

Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms.

This decision flies in the face of years of precedence and

jurisprudence and can only be viewed as a renegade decision. In his

opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice

and cite legal precedents that undergird his decision because there

are none. This ruling has been appealed and since that decision, two

federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the

Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and

bear arms (Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis).

Gun Control Laws and The Second Amendment

Even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an

individual right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that all gun

control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not. In fact, several

states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly

guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet not a single

gun control law has been overturned in those states for violating that

clause.

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws

prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The

First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell " Fire "

in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers

envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence

a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47's with

30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old

can take his father's guns and mow down his classmates, or when

parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily

fire it. The vast majority of the American people support reasonable

gun control laws and view them as necessary to reduce the level of gun

violence in this country. The framers of the Constitution would surely

agree.

For more information:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/

[Guest guest]

I don't personally carry or own guns, but I am of the thought that it is the

people that need to change and be accountable for their actions.............guns

and drugs don't kill people, people themselves and others. You make anything

illegal, but people will still get it if they want it, look at all the junkies.

The way some people live and think is the problem, he could just as easy built

some type of bomb. The old saying " were there is a will, there is a way "

unfortunately applies to the good as well as the bad. Its the heart and soul of

the nation that needs to be changed not the laws so much.

 

 

" Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition

from mediocre minds. "

 

Albert Einstein

 

 

 

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell?

Check outnew cars at Autos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think more importantly, we should be infuriated about the rampant use of

anti-depressants that are known to cause violent and suicidal behavior.

 

Shana

 

 

 

On 4/18/07, lovetheoutdoors_2000 <lovetheoutdoors_2000 wrote:

>

> Myth of the Second Amendment

> Current mood: infuriated

> Category: News and Politics

>

> Today is a very sad day for this nation. Enough is enough! How many

> more lives does it cost to die from gun related violence and crime,

> and how many more school shooting rampages does it take for our

> citizens to say to our government: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH??? We need a

> complete reform in our gun control law!!! The NRA and the misled

> public always use the Second Amendment as an arguement about the

> " civilian's " right to carry firearm.

>

> .

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

Shana Clagg

Hormone Health Nature's Way

http://health.HormoneHealthNW/

 

The Safest Products in the World

http://www.1000moms1000dollars.com/babylove

http://www.neways.com/usa

 

Achieve Inner Fusion

http://www.kingoffruits.com