How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

originally posted by: links234
You're not really taking into consideration the number of suicides that are enabled by gun ownership,

Regarding that particular point, the firearms aren't enabling anything. About half of our suicides don't involve a firearm, so right off the top, we know that there's a very significant propensity to use another method. But more importantly, compare our overall suicide rate to the rest of the world. For reference, ours is 12.1 per 100,000. This is using data from the World Health Organization for 2012. You can find that here.

Japan: 18.5
Poland: 16.6
Belgium: 14.2
France: 12.3
Austria: 11.5
Sweden: 11.1
Australia: 10.6
Canada: 9.8
Germany: 9.2
Italy: 4.7 (and I threw this one because its so low in comparison to its neighbors as to be an outlier).

I didn't include the UK at 6.2, because that number doesn't make sense given the total number of suicides being reported yearly (about 6,000 in the 'more info' link in the chart).

Regardless, the point is, the overall US suicide rate is not unusually high compared to most. We're a little higher than some, a little lower than some, but every one of them has gun laws significantly more strict than ours, with Japan probably the most restrictive of all. Given that suicides still occur at comparable rates in other nations that have very strict gun laws, its likely that more restrictive gun laws here won't help. They'll just find another means to do it.

a reply to: vor78

They'll just find another means to do it.

Good point.
Oh Nooooes! The Progressives will have to outlaw tall buildings and ropes!

Reading the thread I see lots of evidence that there's manipulation of Second Amendments meaning from what I call progressives via a failure to understand plain English, word games, twisted logic and outright obfuscation via unrelated opinion.

Not one shred of evidence that the NRA has changed its meaning.

Heaven forbid we'd ever attack 1st with such zeal.

As NEO posted way backl the Amendments work together, picking and choosing is not a way to go because one can't abide another's freedom and responsibility.

a reply to: xuenchen

I love looking for links and so far while I would love to find how dirty money gets into the supreme court I can not find anything, all I got is how the supreme court has been criticized because some people that don't like how the supreme court rules in some issues like guns religion and gay marriage thinks that they are too progressive.

that is just opinions.

This comma argument is killing me. Please STOP. If you need a comma to validate your argument you should have not entered the argument to begin with.

We've all seen the meme "losing an argument, point out grammatical errors". Kind of the same thing.

Edit: Please no examples of how thing can be misinterpreted by a misplaced comma. I get it. I made it out of the 4th grade...

The Federalist papers seem to be quite clear on the use of verbiage in the second amendment.
Madison, Mason, and Henry hashed it out quite thoroughly.

They all knew the difference between 'country' and 'state.' They had recent memory of founding a country.
Why did they use "state" in the second amendment?

There was, on one hand, great concern over having a federal standing army, and it was suggested that having the states put together their own regiments, and select their own generals should a conflict emerge. A greater number of troops could be raised and supported without the burden on the federal government. At his point, Henry and Mason objected that the verbiage offered would allow for slaves (they were both slave owners) to be included in the selection of a ad hoc army.

The verbiage about 'a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free STATE'. (note "state" and not "Country").. was a compromise that allowed for the militias of the slave states to continue to be able to inspect the dwellings of slaves weekly, round up escaped slaves, and prevent any sort of insurgency. That would have meant a 'loss of property' to all slave owners.
It has nothing to do with an armed citizenry. It has everything to do with controlling 'property' in the form of slaves.
Henry, and Mason were greatly concerned about the 'property' of the slave owners being lost. Especially since Henry had hundreds of slaves.
With the defeat of the Confederacy, the emancipation proclamation, and the 14th amendment, that line practically becomes meaningless. Especially when you consider that by that time, there was a federal standing army (which somewhat negated the need for an armed citizenry)!

The NRA is an organization that is completely controlled by the interests of the firearms manufacturers. All advocacy by the NRA suits the purposes of the gun makers. Their rhetoric is designed, and very cleverly designed, to increase gun sales, and in turn the profits of the gun manufacturers. Since these manufacturers are 'corporations' - they lobbied, and greatly benefited from the Citizen United decision that made Corporations "people." Now they can use a new spin to include themselves the redefining of the second amendment.

Revisionist history to make more profits. Sound familiar?
It was never about taking your guns. It's always been about owning other human beings, and profits.

Rhetoric about being armed to protect against 'tyrannical governments' is just bluster. At no point in the last 239 years has that been necessary - other than the civil war, and that was ALL about slavery.

a reply to: Bedlam

I don't know. No one does.

My school was much the same way, rifles in the back of pickups 'cause we were going deer hunting after school, or there were shotguns, because we're going pheasant hunting. Never had to leave them in the principals office, because no one would think of stealing someones rifle/shotgun, homework? Sure. A treasured thing like a rifle/shotgun? Hell, no.

Fights never really happened...pushing/shoving, sure. But I don't recall a fight, on campus.

I was never a member of any clique, so I saw everything...and it was never even remotely like what we're seeing all too often now.

If anything, the access to weapons was even greater, 'cause we brought the things to school with us...

There's something else going on here, only the most ardent anti-gun zealot can't see it.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support." Most of the framers wrote that they thought a standing army was a very bad idea. Additionally, Indian raids still occurred in most of the states at the time, and many slave revolts occurred. The states controlled the local militia at the time, and the local government could conscript men in a moment’s notice by local sheriffs and constables. It made sense that people had to keep their “arms” handy in case of any trouble, not stored 10 miles away in an armory.

Read some of the letters sent from the boarder states or southern representatives. They were terrified of being killed.

Badger beat me to this point, and did a fine job.

If you re'wright the wording ever one reads.
then in years to come they will say.
"see what its says?"
they are changing things and you are helping.
say some thing for a long time and people believe it.
they forget the truth.
they are stupid fools.

originally posted by: avgguy
So you're mad the the NRA doesn't have the full quote inscribed at its offices? And how does that equate them "changing the second amendment"?

I also assume that you're against abortion as well? Considering it takes millions of American lives per year because of "rights, revisionist history and lobbying"

a reply to: Phoenix

Exactly! Heaven forbid that they decide that "freedom of the press" actually means that all news media must be free in the sense that no one should have to pay for access to it and thus the government should make it free and socialize it because that would absolutely guarantee a free press. Right?

a reply to: vor78

Those are some good stats, I like those. Thanks.

Guns are still a public health issue. There's accidental gun deaths:
Children and Guns: The Hidden Toll

While about 60 percent of the accidental firearm deaths identified by The Times involved handguns as opposed to long guns, that number was much higher — more than 85 percent — when the victims were very young, under the age of 6. In fact, the average handgun victim was several years younger than long gun victims: between 7 and 8, compared with almost 11.

Irresponsibility it a major killer in America.

Assault or Homicide

Number of deaths: 16,121
Number of deaths: 11,208

Is that right? Someone double check that for me, 70% of all homicides in America are from guns??

One argument I hear all the time is how much more deadly vehicle accidents are. Why don't we apply the same rules to guns as we do to vehicles? You need license, you need to register every year and you need to pass a safety test before you can operate one. Or is that 'infringement?'

Another thing I hear often, usually from older folks, is that they remember a time where the NRA was more about safety than about expanding gun rights. Somewhat related article; The Cult Of The Second Amendment

And to a remarkable extent, the default position of conservatives has less and less to do with arguments about the efficacy of gun regulation or the need for guns to deter or respond to crime. Instead, it’s based on the idea that the main purpose of the Second Amendment is to keep open the possibility of revolutionary violence against the U.S. government.

a reply to: butcherguy

I will tell you the same thing I've told others... Grow some gonads and go collect all the guns.... or even just the ones that you don't like. But do it unarmed, just like you want all gun owners to be. Don't rely on a hired govt goon to do it for you.

Molon Labe

a reply to: links234

The accidental deaths are unfortunate, but any time you have an activity that's potentially dangerous, you're going to have accidental fatalities. That's true of a number of activities viewed as mundane and relatively safe that actually cause more accidental deaths than negligent use of firearms, including among children. That being said, I have no issue with increasing the penalties against the gun owner in cases where negligence leads to an accidental fatality.

And yes, about two thirds of all homicides are committed with firearms. A good portion of those are also committed by criminals who aren't going to obey any gun law you pass, anyway, and have no short supply of illegal weapons already.

As far as the older people are concerned...just as times have changed on certain other issues, they've changed on this one. As I said in a thread a few days ago, the Democrat view of the majority of gun owners and the types of firearms that they own is vastly outdated. Democrats think this is all about hunting and grandpas old duck gun. You could see it plainly in Biden's whole shotgun rant a couple of years ago. You could see it Friday when Obama asked gun owners if the NRA really represents them. Well, yeah, actually, they generally do. All you need to do is head to a gun store and watch what sells and what doesn't. In most areas, its going to be the AR pattern rifles and high capacity handguns, not the old pump shotguns and lever rifles used for hunting.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Sorry, I don't see where they re-wrote it. Did you misread?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I am in the militia. I was legally required to sign up for selective service when u turned 18.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Sorry, I don't see where they re-wrote it. Did you misread?

Wasn't my headline, dude.

Yet you used it, dude.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Okay.

Here's a thing I don't get. As a result of my other this thread on the NRA and the Second, where I thought I really just wanted to know more about the NRA's influence, I saw many people say that gun ownership in that day was a given...a necessity...a no biggie.

Then, also as a result, I did more reading and rereading than I probably wanted to of both the Federalist and Antifederalist papers.

And I kind of drew two things from this. The main concerns and writings in the papers seemed to be more an issue of state militias v a standing federal army than anything to do with owning a "thing." And as the addendum to that, if gun ownership was such a given and such an everyday part of life taken for granted, like a plow or a horse or a sword or whatever other things and tools necessary to survival, why would they have been all that concerned with it?

I'm not being a jerk. It all just got me to really thinking.