A Revisit Of The 2nd

WE have a had crappy month of April mass shootings seem to be the rule and cops killing civilians seem to be everywhere and everyday.

Something needs doing about this out of control problem.

I guess I had better restate my position on the 2nd.

I am not for unlimited gun control….I am a gun owner…I am against the unlimited access of civilians to assault weapons….I mean if they want to play with advanced weaponry then grow a set of balls and join the military…the key to that is “a set of balls”…..

I have written much on the 2nd amendment…..first my thought on the history of the amendment….https://lobotero.com/2013/01/30/why-the-2nd/

Then my post on the “true meaning of the 2nd”……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/the-true-meaning-of-the-2nd/

This is a conversation with the author of a book on the 2nd amendment…….

As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause’s awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust.

The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, digs into this discrepancy. What does the Second Amendment mean today, and what has it meant over time? He traces the history of the contentious clause and the legal reasoning behind it, from the Constitutional Convention to modern courtrooms.

This historical approach is noteworthy. The Heller decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is rooted in originalism, the concept that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the founders. While Waldman emphasizes that we must understand what the framers thought, he argues that giving them the last word is impossible—and impractical. “We’re not going to be able to go back in a time machine and tap James Madison on the shoulder and ask him what to do,” he says. “How the country has evolved is important. What the country needs now is important. That’s certainly the case with something as important and complicated as guns in America.”

The Second Amendment Doesn’t Say What You Think It Does

Interesting thoughts.

Anything to add?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

10 thoughts on “A Revisit Of The 2nd

  1. I fully agree. I am also a gun owner but don’t dare classify me as one of these Second Amendment-or-die gun nuts who somehow think their gun ownership gives them some power over government (that’s rhetorical, btw). I also DO NOT agree with the SCOTUS interpretation of gun ownership…. but… given I will always side with the Constitution that means I will abide by all SCOTUS decisions. Yet that does not mean I think they.. SCOTUS, was correct in their interpretation. To me the wording is plain and simple. Beyond that, I feel that we need to re-write the Second to include firm language the right for an individual to own firearms… and options for future controls as a changing future society and technology would require. The “gun nuts” don’t want that because the current ambiguity of the wording of the original Second is working for them. Getting any more specific creates too many possibility for gun restraints.
    These people honestly think their gun ownership is keeping government in line… and it’s some divine right to self-defense. I’ve written many a post on the idiocy of thinking your gun makes a difference to power. If there’s a need to take out my gun to make a march on Washington, or whatever is acting as a seat of power, it’s the end of the country anyway. Your family AK-47 isn’t gonna save you from a damn thing by that time.

  2. You know my thoughts about gun ownership. If someone can buy two automatic pistols that each hold say 15 rounds, he can potentially kill 30 people before being stopped, or running out of ammunition. So the assault rifle debate isn’t really the point. If he can buy 4 pistols, he can kill 60 people, and so on, until everyone is dead.
    Best wishes, Pete.

    1. One death from these are unacceptable….extended mags is unacceptable…..if they feel they must kill then grow a set and join the military where there is unlimited amount of ‘bad guys’ chuq

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.