Is the second amendment outdated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pprimeau1976
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pprimeau,
Code: 
          When people start debating about the need for a 2nd Amendment. People either have forgotten or deliberately omit what the intent of the Founding Fathers were. Some are some of their quotes:
No free man shall be barred the use of arms within his own land." Thomas Jefferson- Virginia Constitution 1776

" A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."
George Washington- 1st Annual Address to Congress 1790

''None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army."
Thomas Jefferson 1803

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined.”
Patrick Henry - Virginia Ratifying Convention 1787-1788

“Americans (have) the right and advantage of being armed-Unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison- The Federalist # 46

“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense…
Weakness allures the ruffian (but) arms, like laws, discourage and
keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world…horrid mischief would ensue were (the good) deprived of
the use of them.”
Thomas Paine

“Those who recollect the distress and danger to this country in former periods from the lack of arms, must exult in the assurance from their representatives, that we shall soon rival foreign countries, not only in the number, but in the quality of arms, completed from our own manufacturers.”
John Adams- Address to House of Representatives

“The constitutions of most of our states assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves,in all cases to which they think themselves competent, or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
Thomas Jefferson to Major John Cartwright 1824

“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”
George Washington 1st Annual Address to Congress 1790
 
Hi vern humphey,

Maybe you can help me with these questions and the proper source locations. " Doesn’t the National Defense Act of 1916, make mention of an unorganized militia, comprising of males 17-65 years of age?" Aren’t there any documents before and after that validate this?
Thank you for your assistance
Patrick
 
If the 2nd amendment is repealed, only criminals would have weapons and they would use them on the weak and vulnerable.

That is the sad fact when law and human behavior collide.
 
PatrickJT914 said:
Hi vern humphey,

Maybe you can help me with these questions and the proper source locations. " Doesn’t the National Defense Act of 1916, make mention of an unorganized militia, comprising of males 17-65 years of age?" Aren’t there any documents before and after that validate this?
Thank you for your assistance
Code: 
                               Patrick
Click to expand...
Hi Patrick,

I’ll leave that question for Vern, since I don’t know about the National Defense Act of 1916, but current federal law does state that the militia consists of all males between 17-45 who are U.S. citizens or have declared their intention to become citizens, as well as female U.S. citizens who are members of the National Guard.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/10/subtitles/a/parts/i/chapters/13/sections/section_311.html

*United States Code
TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES
SUBTITLE A – GENERAL MILITARY LAW
PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA
SECTION 311 – Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
*

Regards,

Chris
 
No one seems interested in the comparison of the amendment in question with the purpose which it was enacted to serve. Given the purpose, begs the question is it serving that purpose or undermining it.
To hear the late Mr. Heston talk, he advocated a nuclear weapon in every garage.
When they finally decide to get rid of the foolishness, I’ll gladly turn my .58 caliber weapon over to the authorities. (Well, if you’re going to have one, have a big one.)

Matthew
 
Here’s a nice read from The “Patriot Post” (Vol. 07 No. 16)

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic…” —Justice Joseph Story

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
Are gun-free nations or “zones” safer?
Gun-free nations are safer—at least for folks like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot and Saddam, all of whom disarmed their detractors before slaughtering them by the tens of millions.

History records the consequences of disarming people, both in terms of protection, in their person and property, from tyrannical governments and from criminals. Regarding the latter, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

Thomas Jefferson understood that maxim. In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

The same can be said of so-called “gun-free zones” in America, as on the campus of Virginia Tech.

“Virginia Tech has a very sound policy”
In 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law just up the road from Virginia Tech, a Nigerian student, who had flunked out, returned to campus, murdered three people and wounded three others. Fortunately, his killing spree was interrupted by two students who had retrieved handguns from their vehicles and held the murderer at gunpoint until police arrived.

This intervention was not unprecedented.

In 1997, an assistant principal in Pearl, Mississippi, retrieved a handgun from his car and apprehended a murderer. A few days later, a copycat assault in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, ended after a nearby merchant wielding a shotgun forced the attacker to surrender. Off campus, it is estimated conservatively that gun owners use their weapons defensively more than 1.3 million times each year.

With that as a backdrop, last spring Virginia Tech admonished a student for having a handgun on campus—never mind that the student had a state-issued concealed-carry permit.

That admonishment was a motivating factor behind a proposed bill before the Virginia legislature to prevent academic institutions from enacting “rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed-handgun permit… from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun.”

The legislation died in committee, prompting Tech’s associate vice president, Larry Hincker, to praise the General Assembly in a Roanoke (Virginia) Times op-ed: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus. We believe guns don’t belong in the classroom. In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear.”

A month later, there was a murder near Tech’s campus, prompting a lockdown.

In response, Tech grad student Bradford Wiles penned an op-ed in the campus paper calling on the school to allow those with concealed-carry permits to carry guns on campus should they choose.

Larry Hincker emerged again, protesting, “*t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles. Surely, [the editors] scratched their heads saying, ‘I can’t believe he really wants to say that.’ Guns don’t belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.”

Congratulations Mr. Hinkler. Your “sound policy” created a “safe campus” for only one student—Cho Seung-Hui—who was able to slaughter 32 people without interruption.

A theatrical performance
Unlike most psychopathic killers, Korean native Cho Seung-Hui produced the equivalent of theatrical trailers and stills advertising his murderous intentions and motives and sent them to NBC on the day of his rampage. The video outlined his intense hatred for his fellow students, and the still photos looked like promotional shots from almost any violent video game, rap CD or Hollywood release.

The violent images were consistent with a report filed by one of Cho’s teachers, Lucinda Roy, who noted violent themes in Cho’s writing projects. Unfortunately, she was told there were too many legal hurdles to open an investigation. Another professor, Nikki Giovanni, had him removed from her class because his behavior was so threatening.

In 2005, Cho was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment ordered by a County District Court Judge, who certified in the order that Cho presented “an imminent danger to self or others” and ordered him to receive outpatient treatment. The psychologist who evaluated Cho reported that “his affect is flat and mood is depressed,” but “his insight and judgment are normal.” Apparently not.

In an act of stupefyingly poor judgment, NBC chose to release Cho’s murderous manifesto, raising immediate and serious questions about copycat killers. “Showing the video is a social catastrophe,” protests forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner. “I promise you the disaffected will watch him the way they watched ‘Natural Born Killers.’ I know. I examine these people. I’ve examined mass shooters who have told me they’ve watched it 20 times. You cannot saturate the American public with this kind of message.”

The prospect of getting through the end of this school year without a copycat incident is diminishing.*
 
Part Deux

“Gun Violence”?
In the words of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD, “Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.” (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer’s hands.)

Suggesting that mass murder is a “gun problem” ignores the real problem—murderous pathology and the culture which nurtures it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School.)

If guns cause homicides, then one may, by logical extension, draw the following conclusions about causal factors for the top U.S. mortality groups: golden arches cause heart disease, cigarette lighters cause cancer, sex causes abortions, steering wheels cause car accidents, toxic-warning labels cause poisonings, ladders cause falls and bottles cause deaths associated with alcohol abuse.

Of course, by way of this liberal blameshifting logic, one may also conclude that commercial jets and truck bombs cause buildings to collapse, 90210 causes 9/11 conspiracy theories, freedom causes tyranny, beards cause terrorism, SUVs cause global warming, White House interns cause infidelity, saying “no” causes rape, chains cause slavery, matches cause arson, cameras cause pornography, sporks cause obesity, marriage causes divorce, crowbars cause burglary, credit cards cause bankruptcy, elections cause corruption, 24-hour news-cycle talkingheads cause ignorance, ad nauseam…

Murder statistics in perspective
According to the most recent annual statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, there were 11,500 homicides committed by perpetrators using guns. There were 17,000 deaths committed by perpetrators using vehicles after consuming alcohol. Your chances of being killed by a drunk driver are much higher than being killed by a perp with a gun.

In the last decade, there were almost 180,000 (that’s 180 thousand) people killed in car wrecks where alcohol abuse was a key factor. In the same ten-year period, there were 110 students (including those at VA Tech) murdered on campus by psychopaths.

Perhaps the Brady Campaign and Democrats in Congress should set their sights on federal legislation mandating a five-day waiting period before purchasing alcohol. After all, many of the perpetrators who used guns instead of cars to commit homicide were also abusing alcohol.

Fact is, if we exclude gang-bangers and crack heads, the probability of being murdered in the U.S. is more in line with the oft-cited lower murder rates in Western Europe—but let’s not separate the wheat from the chaff.

The solution to the “gun problem” is “gun control”
In the wake of any mass homicide by a psychopathic killer, Second Amendment opponents are the first responders, and predictably, endeavor to convert the blood of innocents into political capital for gun confiscation.

Typical of the confiscators’ rhetoric was this comment from Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke: “It is well known how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our country. [After many school] killings, we’ve done nothing as a country to end gun violence in our schools and communities. If anything, we’ve made it easier to access powerful weapons.”

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy carried the Democrats’ banner: “The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if congressional leaders [had] stood up to the gun lobby.”

Of course, the media set the tone. The New York Times issued numerous “gun problem” headlines like “Gun Rampage is Nation’s Worst” and “Epidemic of Gun Violence.” The editors insisted, “What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons…”

Despite the Leftmedia’s trumpeting of the Virginia Tech massacre as the “bloodiest student attack in history,” the most lethal attack on a school occurred on 18 May 1927, when Andrew Kehoe, a Bath, Michigan, school-board member, murdered 45 people, including 38 elementary students—with a bomb.

Of note, The Times also endeavored to capitalize on the carnage—paying for positions with search engines to make sure its stories were high on the results list for info on the Virginia Tech “gun violence.”

Conversely, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Robert Levy recently noted: “Many politicians have exploited a few recent tragedies to promote their anti-gun agenda. But gun controls haven’t worked and more controls won’t help. In fact, many of the recommended regulations will make matters worse by stripping law-abiding citizens of their most effective means of self-defense. Violence in America is due not to the availability of guns but to social pathologies—illegitimacy, dysfunctional schools and drug and alcohol abuse. Historically, more gun laws have gone hand in hand with an explosion of violent crime.”

Forty states now issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens—but the liberal press is unrelenting in its effort to undermine such policy.

It was just last month, in fact, that I chastised the Roanoke Times for publishing a database of concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia, in effect creating a “Do Not Call List” for criminals.
 
Part Tres

Quote of the week
“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.” —Ronald Reagan in 1983, after surviving the 1981 assassination attempt of the deranged John Hinckley. (Read a defense of gun ownership penned by then-Governor Reagan in 1975)

Open query
“Why is the Virginia Tech murderer always referred to as the ‘gunman’ and not the ‘murderer’? Had he stabbed a dozen students to death, would he be the ‘knifeman’?” —Dennis Prager

On cross-examination
“There’s no polite way or time to say it: American colleges and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregated dorms, politically correct academic departments and designated ‘safe spaces’ to protect students selectively from hurtful (conservative) opinions—while allowing mob rule for approved leftist positions (textbook case: Columbia University’s anti-Minuteman Project protesters). Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning [sic] stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance. And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense.” —Michelle Malkin
 
And here is an interesting factoid: (not my creation)

Plagiarized:

I read a long article on this (Hitler’s gun control) not long ago. Hitler really didn’t want anyone to have guns except his trusted Nazi party.

FIRST… his political party (Nazi) proposed legislating reasonable limits on the people (no criminals or crazies) and gun types (machine guns, and larger).

NEXT… they instituted additional registration, tracking, and restrictions on sales.

NEXT… you could only have guns for hunting purposes; therefore they had to be stored in a public place (away from you) in a police guarded location.

NEXT… came actual collection of guns from those criminals who didn’t turn in their guns.

NEXT… people started “squealing” on their criminal neighbors who kept their guns who were clearly “criminal enemies of the state, and up to no-good”.

NEXT… to have guns, you had to pledge allegiance to the State of Germany, i.e. be a “GOOD citizen”.

NEXT… because no one had guns to defend himself or herself or to protest, Hitler pretty much said that allegiance to the State of Germany really meant allegiance to Nazi-ism.

Obviously, at that time, only Nazis had guns or had access to them. At that point, the hope for stopping or reversing Hitler was OVER!!

As new Nazis pledged allegiance, the police issued the stockpile of guns (in lock-up at the local police station) to the new Nazis. It snowballed from there.

Hmm maybe a little skewed, but if the Dems and gun banners get their way…
 
rpp said:
If the 2nd amendment is repealed, only criminals would have weapons and they would use them on the weak and vulnerable.

That is the sad fact when law and human behavior collide.
Click to expand...
Go to Washington, D.C., where guns are completely outlawed, and see how that has affected the crime rate.:rolleyes:
 
The question as to whether the second amendment is outdated is irrelevant; no one is seriously suggesting that it be repealed. The only meaningful question is guessing how it will be (as opposed to how it should be) interpreted by SCOTUS. It seems rather apparent to me that it was interpreted by those who wrote and ratified it to mean that the ownership of a weapon was an individual right as much as was the right to speech and religion. I predict (OK, hope) that the case before it will be ruled 5-4 in favor of the individual’s right to bear arms.

Ender
 
Ender said:
The question as to whether the second amendment is outdated is irrelevant; no one is seriously suggesting that it be repealed. The only meaningful question is guessing how it will be (as opposed to how it should be) interpreted by SCOTUS. It seems rather apparent to me that it was interpreted by those who wrote and ratified it to mean that the ownership of a weapon was an individual right as much as was the right to speech and religion. I predict (OK, hope) that the case before it will be ruled 5-4 in favor of the individual’s right to bear arms.

Ender
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I have borne arms all my adult life – and no evil has come of it, only good.
 
lizaanne said:
Sure! Give citizens the same fire power as the government so we are on the same footing!:rolleyes:

Of course it shouldn’t be changed - it is still perfectly relevant today. I should have the right to protect myself and my family. Not only against a corrupt government, but against others as well.

~Liza
Click to expand...
I agree Liza. The people should still have the right to bear arms and I don’t see how that right should ever change.

I think that the people who authored the Bill of Rights were very wise people and that all of the items in the Bill of Rights should remain till the end of time.
 
Last week a group of policemen, five to be exact, from another city came into our city and were involved in a drive-by shooting. They were upset because of a quarrel that started in a bar.
All Americans have the right to protect themselves.
I don’t know why this did not make national news.
 
jailbelle said:
Last week a group of policemen, five to be exact, from another city came into our city and were involved in a drive-by shooting. They were upset because of a quarrel that started in a bar.
All Americans have the right to protect themselves.
I don’t know why this did not make national news.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t fit the Party Line that “only the police should have guns, because they’re trained.”
 
vern_humphrey said:
I take it you have no combat experience or military training?😉

You are perfectly free to push for a constitutional amendment. But simply blithely ignoring the Second Amendment will also vitiate the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well. If one Amendment can be declared “outdated” and ignored, **all **Amendments will ultimately receive the same treatment.
Click to expand...
Wait um…didn’t there used to be an amendment prohibiting alcohol and then was later ammended so it was permitted again? So um…what pray tell are you referring too?
 
vern_humphrey said:
Go to Washington, D.C., where guns are completely outlawed, and see how that has affected the crime rate.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I am very happy with our gun control laws thank you very much. And most of the people who live here that I know want to keep those laws in place. None of my neighbors are calling for guncontrol to be repealed. In fact many of them are part of the increase the peace inititative. The people here (aside from the thug wannabes) are very against guns to the point of restriction of any imigry in school that reference violence. Alot of Urban kids like to waer Scarface shirts to school, many with him holding a machine gun. Needless to say, kids are reprimanded immediately and are told to turn the shirt inside out or go home. For those who didn’t know, Our basket ball team was called the BULLETS before there was a huge inititative to change the name to the washington Wizards. It seems DC has bad luck when it comes to choosing names. We are indeed still getting flak about our NFL team as well. Point is, People in DC do not think like ppl in texas. We live very very very VERY close to one another and it’s easy for tension to escalate. add guns to the mix and all Hell breaks loose. And yes there is some crime but. We are NOT the murder capital of the world anymore. If it was All those rich Suburbanites from Virginia wouldn’t be moving back here to live in all the expensive apartments with gouged prices that the original working class tenants can no longer afford. The major issue with crime in DC all boils down to this:Social Class. It’s always been social class and it will continue to be the main issue until something drastic is done about it. Gun control laws will stay, but the poverty induced crime will simply move to Maryland where guns ARE legal.
 
Thanks to all who responded.

Regarding Afghanistan, it’s important to note that the Afgans had support from the CIA. The CIA was supplying them with stinger missiles in addition to untold military hardware.

I’m all for the second amendment, but I am not for it so I can one day legally overthrow the government. If I wanted to overthrow the government, would I care if I did it legally or not? Is there even a legal way to overthrow the government? I don’t think there is. So, if someone overthrew the government, it would not be by the “responsible gun owners”, it will be by people who break the U.S. gun laws.

So, I am thinking that some of the reasons for the 2nd amendment are outdated. The only reason to have it is so people can defend themselves against their fellow citizens, not necessarily the government.
 
I said this:
Originally Posted by vern humphrey
I take it you have no combat experience or military training?
Click to expand...
You are perfectly free to push for a constitutional amendment. But simply blithely ignoring the Second Amendment will also vitiate the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well. If one Amendment can be declared “outdated” and ignored, all Amendments will ultimately receive the same treatment.
Click to expand...
And your response was:
Naztakuan said:
Wait um…didn’t there used to be an amendment prohibiting alcohol and then was later ammended so it was permitted again? So um…what pray tell are you referring too?
Click to expand...
Can you please tell me how your response is related to my post?:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top