"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"

What are you talking about? Our Second Amendment clearly refers to the Term: Militia in the first clause; 10USC311 defines the militia of the United States.

 

Can you show me a copy of the 10USC311 the way it was when the second amendment was written or not? In the mean time;

2nd Amendment; for dummies...

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...endment&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002

 

Why is that relevant? It is part of our supreme law of the land, now.

 

It is relevant because it establishes your intellectual dishonesty. If you are going to talk about the constitution, original intent is extremely significant. The definition of militia in 1787 and the definition the government has created since then are two completely different animals.

 

I give credit to this, as it is a fundamental in how we make laws.

However, the next level of this is that the debate needs to be properly informed.

The success of the right wing in preventing studies on gun violence is dead wrong, as it leaves us without the very information that should be being fueling the discussion.

The next step needs to be overturning the restrictions on gathering information.

 

Maybe. Data is valuable. So is privacy. What kind of restrictions are you talking about?



​

 

dude; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Are you from Alabama?

 

How about.. governments killed 200 million of their own citizens in the 20th Century, not including war. Is that reason enough for the citizens to be able to have arms, rather than turning all the guns over to the one institution which has a monopoly on the use of force and coercion, and which has the largest military in the world?

I thought liberals were supposed to support small things? They want to support small business against corporations, but they want all of the political, economic, and firearm power to be located in a very small group of hands. Why?

 

I am not sure what you mean; in the US, the militia of the United States may be called forth, to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. The People have an entitlement to functioning Government.

 

The GOP has been successful in blocking the CDC from studying gun violence. Today we also have very little to zero data on police shootings, because of lax or absent reporting requirements.

The CDC studies all sorts of risks to health, so I don't believe privacy is an issue.​

 

Not sure gun violence is really the purview of the CDC. Police involved shootings are a sore spot. The FBI collects data, voluntarily reported by different jurisdictions. But many jurisdictions don't participate because it's expensive to collect, classify, and submit. Requiring and standardizing participation, there's a cost.

It can also be misleading. There are some folks on this board that repeatedly use those statistics to claim black skin makes you more likely to be a killer. Or homosexuality is a danger to the public health.

A lot of towns have complained that participating in the FBI program has cost them because the ones more diligent in reporting get listed as dangerous or less attractive places to live or work. The FBI has started adding disclaimers because of the problems of people misusing that data. I wish the CDC would start.

I agree that what you're talking about doesn't look like it would have privacy issues. But I'm not sure I see the value of more bureaucracy requiring that expense. What value are you hoping to get from this data? What question do you want those studies and compiled data to answer?




​

 

The people also have the right to overthrow oppressive governments, like what happened when this country was founded.

 

When all the people have access to arms, the militia is well regulated.

 

You're trying to dodge.

The CDC studies automobile safety.

Right - lax rules on reporting means we don't know. And, police shootings are probably not the largest safety issue.

So, it's time to stop blocking the study of firearms safety.

 

... no, I'm not. That's not a fair criticism. There is a difference between blocking/restricting research and asking to have research done by public agencies, paid for with public dollars.

If you want to do this study and someone is blocking you, well unless someone has a good reason to restrict you in that way I'm all for giving you that freedom.

If you want my tax dollars to answer a question for you, I'm only likely to support you being entitled to that work if you provide a good argument. Or at least tell me the question. You haven't.




​

 

Yes, there is a difference. And, what the GOP did was to specifically block the CDC from studying guns.

There was no objection to the fact that gun safety is within the charter of the CDC to study. And, the CDC wants to study this issue, because it is significant with respect to what is covered by their charter. Nobody had to ask them. Their assessment is that this topic needs to be studied by them.

The GOP singled out this one topic among all others for the CDC to be blocked from studying.

And, the GOP made it clear that it is NOT a CDC budget issue - that is, they are fine with the money being spent in any other way that the CDC spends money.


There isn't any debate about the GOP blocking the CDC from guns specifically. That is exactly what they did, and they did nothing to obscure that.

 

*shrug* Seems like law enforcement, which investigates every gun related death, would be more appropriate. And in fact already has much of this data (that FBI program I mentioned). But maybe not, there has been a pretty serious backlash from that program and maybe it would be better to pass it off to a less invested agency.

That said, you are not talking about blocking research or preventing studies. You are talking about directing or authorizing the work of a public agency.

What do you want them to research? Is there an article you can point me at an article about this legislation? A quick scan of it might answer my questions.



​

 

I agree that law enforcement does need to play a role. However, their emphasis is on solving crimes.

One big one would be for them to start recording firearms discharges - which they do not do at present.

As for links, here's a link to the story. I haven't tried to find the underlying congressional documents.

 

We have a First Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean? Arms for the militia of the United States is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8 of our federal Constitution; it may be general issue.

 

Just changing a definition doesn't automatically eliminate the intent of the amendments in the constitution dude.

 

Again, when that amendment was written, it had nothing to do with a federal militia, it had to do with the rights of the people to keep from being over run with tyranny the way they had been under an un- tethered monarchy. Your direct re-visionary distortion of the amendment shows that you cannot grasp any sense of reality, yet you belittle people who are trying to educate you. For shame.

 

Some prefer to ignore that the Founding Fathers deemed their preambulatory phrase important: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State ..." and pretend that they just thought it sounded cool or were being uncharacteristically garrulous. I suspect they were being typically thoughtful and deliberate.

Some have noted,

• 1. that the Second Amendment was intended to be read in its entirety;
  
  
• 2. that the first part of the amendment is both syntactically and semantically tied to
  the second;
  
  
• 3. that the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the
  right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia;
  
  
• 4. that the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase bear arms in the 18th
  century is tied to military contexts, not to contexts involving hunting or self
  defense;
  
  
• 5. and that the word militia refers in the federal period to an organized and trained
  body of citizen-soldiers, or to those eligible to serve in such a body, not to any
  and all Americans, most of whom were actually barred from militia service.

Are there "well-regulated" militias? Are they still "necessary to the security of a free state"?

Meanwhile, our hyper-permissive gun culture continues to bear the predictable tragic consequences far beyond the frequency of such occurrences throughout the civilised world.

 

Why do you believe it is ok to be illegal to our own laws and complain about less fortunate illegals. Isn't there a Religious, technical term, for that.

- - - Updated - - -

Our federal Constitution specifically applies to our federal government and the militia of the United States.

 

The constitution is specifically created to give the power to the people, and limit the federal government's control over the people. Again revising it to fit a particular agenda doesn't automatically make it so.

Yes Natty accidents are terrible things. In fact the likelihood of someone being killed in an auto accident, or a medical accident, or a accident within the home that doesn't involve your favorite boogie man (guns), yet you have not gone off your rocker pretending to be concerned about these tragic accidental devices says a lot about your sincerity, and your character. The second amendment is about the protection of the country, from tyrannical influence, both foreign and domestic, it doesn't matter what 'some' have noted, or what state of denial you decide to reside in. If you don't want to own a gun then don't, but you can leave the people's rights and the constitution alone with your ignorance and stupidity. Nobody who understands the history of the constitution is buying your BS.

 

We have a First Amendment. Our Second Amendment clearly gives preference to well regulated militia.