ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

Alarmist: The GOP's Incendiary Rhetoric

Updated on July 16, 2014

2nd Amendment Gone Wrong

Open Carry Laws have twisted the 2nd Amendment beyond reasoning!
Open Carry Laws have twisted the 2nd Amendment beyond reasoning! | Source
Reasonable people don't need to carry this kind of weapon into any normal place of business.
Reasonable people don't need to carry this kind of weapon into any normal place of business.
A modified version of the AR-15 aka civilian M-16
A modified version of the AR-15 aka civilian M-16
This is a weapon for soldiers on the field of battle (military conflict) not for any street in America.
This is a weapon for soldiers on the field of battle (military conflict) not for any street in America.

Common Sense Applications of the 2nd Amendment

The following is how the 2nd Amendment is worded as passed by U.S. Congress and preserved in the National Archives.

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.

Militia as defined in or by Merriam - Webster's Dictionary 1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service. 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Regulate as defined in or by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary 1a: to govern or direct according to rule b(1): to bring under control of law or constituted authority (2): make regulations for or concerning < regulate the industries of a country> 2 : to bring order, method or uniformity to <regulate one's habits> 3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>

Let me preface this article / hub by saying I'm all for the 2nd Amendment but weapons such as those pictured here are not meant to be carried openly in the streets of America. Events such as the Newtown Elementary, Aurora Movie Theater and countless others like it are overkill when it comes to mass shootings.

Okay, allow me to try and put the 2nd Amendment into context as I think it was originally intended to be by the framers of our Constitution. And then apply a more modern context to the 2nd Amendment. Now based upon the Amendment itself as I understand it, this was a right given to people who might need them to defend the country in a military conflict. Back then it was basically able bodied men capable of fighting in a warlike conflict, (i.e. military reservists) of that age.

By definition and a broad application, it was meant for men to be prepared to engage in a military action and not so much for others as a whole. Since then in more modern time it's been interpreted to mean we the people as a society have the right to keep and bear arms, because we've long since won our independence from British Rule. Militias are not needed now, because we have the Armed Forces full time.

I'm saying that to say this, House Republicans have routinely equated new or recently proposed gun safety laws as an attack on the 2nd Amendment. This is impart due to the NRA Lobby on behalf of certain gun manufacturers. The thing I'm against, is not the right to own certain types of guns. But those certain type of guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have them in the first place.

When a mass majority of the American people supported universal background checks, The Tea Party members and the NRA made the absolutely incorrect assertion that it was about taking away the 2nd Amendment. They flooded the right wing media outlets with this utterly nonsensical ploy that President Obama and the entire big bad U.S. government was coming to take away people guns.

NRA's Big Money Interests

How much does the NRA actually care about public safety!
How much does the NRA actually care about public safety! | Source

Which is more important to the NRA,?

See results

The Universal Background Checks quite possibly could have prevented some of the massacres such as VA Tech, Newtown and the Aurora Movie theater shootings. Now in some states namely Texas, they've enacted these purely perverted laws very loosely based on the 2nd Amendment. I believe that these type of laws are not meant to deter crime or criminals, instead potentially endanger the lives of innocent people subject to being caught and possibly killed in the crossfire of a criminal in the process of committing a crime and an improperly trained person with an AR-15 or any other assault weapon.

In my humble opinion there is no need for anyone in America today to have or feel the need to carry an assault weapon slung over their shoulders into any public place of business other than a shooting range or club. This is America not some war zone embroiled in a military conflict. I would feel uncomfortable if I'm in say, a Starbucks, Chilli's, or Dunkin Donuts and a guy walks in with an AR-15, H&K MP-5 or M-16 slung over his shoulder. I would be very nervous in that case, not really knowing that persons state of mind. As a former member of the military, I would wish that I'd have a weapon on me at that time and I'm well versed to safely operate an assault weapon in a tactical situation.

My point being this, criminals will continue to find ways to commit crimes. This fact too has to change first, but I think that these Tea Party / GOP officials will get that point when the next Aurora, Newtown or VA Tech happens in their own backyard for them to truly understand the point I'm trying to make. What if the victim of the next incident is a member of their immediate or extended family and they're at the cemetery burying one of their own loved ones. Or if they themselves go into a darkened movie theater or send their 5,6, or 7 year old to their fancy private school and some mentally disturbed person comes in firing that AR-15, H&K MP-5, or M-16 with 200 extra rounds and magazines. I'll tell you what, they'll be sitting ducks waiting to be plucked off before Police get there.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

      sal sez: Let's keep this debate sociable, stop the innuendos or challenges to my intellect.

      Jack replies: I never posted a word about your intellect... just your willingness to post on critical subjects and issues roiling America today on which you are ignorant. If you think that is an acceptable way to educate the public I would be interested in hearing about it.

      sal sez: I can split hairs with the best of them (i.e. certain facts that Volokh Conspiracy aka volokh.com doesn't readily admit) like it was a 5-4 decision not a 9-0 decision made by the US Supreme Court.

      Jack replies: Errrr.... just how well did you read those cites. Let me quote directly from one...

      "Chief Justice Roberts came in with the hope of producing more unanimous decisions from the Court. While todays decision was 5-4, it was actually unanimous on one point: there is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment. The split came over the important question of the scope of the right and whether the D.C. law itself was constitutional, but the underlying individual-right theory prevailed over a collective- or states-right interpretation that would give no single person the ability to challenge any type of arms regulation"

      sal sez: Also for the record I'm a gun owner and ex-military member

      Jack replies: Good for you. Now answer a question honestly. Would you have liked someone in your squad responsible for watching your back who prepared himself for that job as poorly as you prepared yourself to write this hub?

      Sal sez: Also as a matter of record, All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311.

      Jack replies: No one was arguing that point. The Guard and Reserves have always been considered part of the militia. They are not, however, THE militia.

      As you just noted, the militia is divided into two portions. The organized and the unorganized. Your pretense that the unorganized militia doesn't exist or doesn't somehow count is simply that, a pretense.

      sal sez: pass some gun reform laws

      Jack replies: You've been asked before about what you want to see... and you never answered. So man up. Be specific. Give detail. Just what "gun reform laws" are going to "ensure public safety from preventable tragedies" without infringing on the right of people to keep and bear arms.

      Explain just how they are going to do this amazing deed when all the other gun laws just can't seem to do it.

    • Salvienation profile image
      Author

      Salvienation 3 years ago

      Hello Jack

      Let's keep this debate sociable, stop the innuendos or challenges to my intellect. Next, I don't follow everything the US Supreme Court does everyday, nevertheless remember what happened in 2008 with the Heller case.

      Now as a person capable of doing research to get more knowledge on certain subjects, I can split hairs with the best of them (i.e. certain facts that Volokh Conspiracy aka volokh.com doesn't readily admit) like it was a 5-4 decision not a 9-0 decision made by the US Supreme Court.

      District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense

      The key part of Heller was, how the 2nd Amendment was applied to federal enclaves and how it protects the 2nd Amendment for lawful purposes of self defense within their homes.

      by definition In United States law, a "federal enclave" is a parcel of federal property within a state that is under the "Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States.

      Also for the record I'm a gun owner and ex-military member and I like having the right to keep and bear arms. Plus I was trained to use the assault rifle in full tactical situations, I think I've earned that right!

      Also as a matter of record, All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. Plus the following only proves my point in terms of modern militias and it's origins as pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.

      From its founding years in the 1700s through the early 1900s, the United States maintained only a minimal army and relied on state militias to supply the majority of its troops. As a result of the Spanish-American War, Congress was called upon to reform and regulate the training and qualification of state militias. In 1903, with passage of the Dick Act, the predecessor to the modern-day National Guard was formed. It required the states to divide their militias into two sections. The law recommended the title "National Guard" for the first section, known as the organized militia, and "Reserve Militia" for all others.

      Now if Congress would get off of their asses and pass some gun reform laws to better ensure public safety from preventable tragedies.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

      Here's the problem sal. Heller is the defining Supreme Court case of the 20th century on the issues of the milita, the right to keep and bear arms, and firearm laws.

      Yet, by the admission of your own ignorance you are unaware of any of this critical decision. And then you post on the subject with no background to support your views. And people wonder why gun owners don't want to "dialogue" about the subject and surround issues.

      How can we possible "meet in the middle" with people who have no idea where either end is, let alone the "middle."

      Here is the background of Heller by one of the leading legal professors in the country

      http://www.volokh.com/posts/1205935463.shtml

      Here is his take on what the Heller decision means.

      http://www.volokh.com/posts/1214514180.shtml

      I don't know anything about knitting. But I do know that if I posted a hub stating that knitting should be restricted because all the oysters are disappearing because those old ladies are using up too many pearls while practicing their hobby I would deserve all the scorn that comes my way. Yet those who know equally little about firearms feel compelled to get onto the 'net and show the world what little they know.

    • Salvienation profile image
      Author

      Salvienation 3 years ago

      Hey Jack Burton

      Give me another day or two to verify the contents of 10 US Code @ 311 - Militia: Composition and Classes as well as Sect, 313 of Title 32. Plus send me some links to the aforementioned Heller case regarding the SCOTUS 9-0 decision, Who was it against, Heller v. ? And what was the basis of the case in question. I'll read that information before continuing this debate. I am all for acquiring knowledge to correct me if I'm wrong or misinformed about something.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

      you're right on the other hub... you did sleep thru your social studies. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written many years AFTER the end of the Revolutionary War. We were in no "conflict" at the time and for you to so state is pretty indicative of your actual lack of study on this subject.

      Yes, the defense of our new nation was certainly one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. But not the only one.

      Congress and the Supreme Court disagrees with your declaration that the militia is now the reservists. You cannot find one single law or statute that so says that. You stating it doesn't make it so. The fact that you read it somewhere doesn't make it so. Go ahead. Find one factual Constitutional change that supports your position and quote it.

      In the meantime, you can read the official Senate definition of the militia.

      10 U.S. Code § 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.

      You might want to memorize (2) in case this point is brought up again.

      And as far as the "wrong people" having guns it is against the law for convicted criminals, adjudicated mental cases, and many other classes of people to have firearms. We can make it "doubly illegal" if you choose but those who belong to the criminal class tend not to want to follow the laws you want to make.

      You seem like a good guy who wants to do right. I don't blame you. I hate to see people misbehave with firearms also and do harm to others.

      But being ignorant about the subject, or blaming the Republicans for the actions of criminals is not going to get you where you want to be. Those that actually know about guns, gun laws, and gun owners can spot someone such as you a mile away, and you lose all credibility when you post in ignorance.

      Would you rather spend some time actually learning about the subject instead of just posting what other people have told you and you've swallowed whole without regard to the lack of accuracy and facts?

    • Salvienation profile image
      Author

      Salvienation 3 years ago

      First, the 2nd Amendment was conceived because We (America) were in a conflict with the British Government to win our Independence as a self governed Nation. Second, the Amendment was intended for people to keep and bear arm in defense of our then new nation. The militias are now called Reservists or weekend warriors because we are free from the threat of the British. Lastly, we should have the right to bear arms but do so in a responsible manner ensuring that the wrong people don't have access to them.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

      And just ~how~ do you believe the 2nd Amendment should be "amended"? Before you answer that you might want to read my hub on the 2nd Amendment as a Prophylactic.

    • Salvienation profile image
      Author

      Salvienation 3 years ago

      Hello Jack Burton

      I'm not really familiar with Heller case, but my point is that the 2nd Amendment needs to be amended to reflect the modern times and weaponry.

      Mike Malloy's logic is flawed and potentially as dangerous as the weapons themselves, it only incites a panic situation.

      The NRA is not a terrorist organization, they're slightly misguided in their beliefs or understanding of the 2nd Amendment in the modern times.

      Thanks for reading my HUB(s) and your comments this is what Congress should be doing, having a reasonable exchange of ideas on certain subject.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

      GOP's "incendiary rhetoric?"

      Let's take a stroll thought google just with the key words "NRA terrorist group" and see what kind of articles we find...

      'Why isn’t NRA declared a terrorist organization?"

      "Further proof that the NRA is a terrorist organization (as if any more was needed)."

      " Is the NRA So Different From a Jihadi Terrorist Group? "

      "A Simple Truth: The NRA Are Terrorists, Awash in The Blood of Innocents"

      "The NRA Launches a Terror Campaign Against The U.S. Senate Over Obama Nominee"

      "Declare the NRA a terrorist organization, call several White House petitions"

      "The case against the NRA, terrorist organization"

      "Newspaper editor: NRA members are the ‘real terrorists’"

      "NRA Board Members in the Tank with Domestic Terrorists"

      These are not from unknown, marginal sites. These "incendiary headlines" come from some of the best known and widely read leftist and progressive websites such as Mother Jones, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and others.

      The ignorance of reality by the pro gun control believers is one of the major reasons why there can be no real "dialogue" over the subject.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

      Sal sez: Alarmist: The GOP's Incendiary Rhetoric

      Jack points out the truth:

      Liberal radio host Mike Malloy is reacting to broadened firearm carry rights in Georgia and open carry demonstrations around the county by promising to cause a public panic, perhaps resulting in the death of the person lawfully--and openly--carrying a firearm, if he sees such an individual.

      Malloy said:

      "I guess what I'll do if I'm ever in that situation and I see one of these yahoos walking in with a weapon, high caliber rifle like that, I'll just put on a berserk act. I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Everybody. And then call 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every g--damned cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and they're going to run out of the store and if that rifle isn't shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead."

      In an article titled, “Purge the Bigots,” Slate writer William Saletan penned these chilling words: “Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.

      “More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,’” he continued. “Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them.”

      Or we can talk about about people like Shannon Watts, whose Mothers Demand Action for Gun Sense in America thinks nothing of threatening to “take out” pro-gun pols. And RI State Senator Josh Miller, who told a pro-2A agitator to attempt procreation by himself, with himself.

      Or maybe we can take a look at these "incendiary" cartoons, eh...

      http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.8237101.14013...

      http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.5107598.13664...

      http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.5100568.13663...

      http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.5032471.13654...

      http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.5039653.13655...

      http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.4994351.13649...

      http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.4861585.13639...

      Isn't it rather ODD that every one of these if from a gun control point of view?

      And, of course, the ever predictable mainstream media certainly gets their share in...

      "4 Reasons Why the MSM Botched the Tucson Massacre, and Why they Owe the Victims and Sarah Palin an Apology"

      http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/01/16/4-...

      And by the way... that QU poll has been shown a dozen ways that it was bogus by the questions that it asked.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

      sal makes the routine mistake of trying to apply 21st century definitions to a contract written over 200 years ago with the American people. The Heller decision points out in detail just why he is wrong, and why the justices supported by a 9-0 decision the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.