Conservatives: Does Trump really understand the 2nd Amendment?

1. 81

   Credence2posted 7 years ago

   As for Trump’s suggestions regarding gun control. So, conservatives, whose side is he on here? Is he really suggesting that law enforcement preemptively strip just anybody of weapons before a crime is committed? That is most disturbing.
   
   https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-tr … 23042.html
   
   Quoting what Trump said “JUST TAKE THE GUNS” that they should be taken from any citizen if officials felt they should, even if the object of the confiscation has not broken any laws? Is that one of your 2nd Amendment supporters or just a RAW authoritarian type, period? Conservatives always blame liberals for trying to take theirr precious firearms, while Trump is providing the premise as to how this is to be done and is advocating it. Are conservatives going to tell me that this is “Trump being Trump” with Pense in the wings to muzzle the mindless comments of the “Chicken in Chief”? Is this ‘making America great again’?  I try to understand what you conservatives have regarding this ‘gun thing’. But does Trump really understand the principles advocated by conservatives, as he is supposed to be one?  Trump says, “The police should have taken the weapons from anyone without justification whether they had the right or not.” Again, is that not what the rightwinger is accusing liberals of doing?
   
   Excerpt from the Washington Examiner:
   - President Trump told Republicans on Wednesday they should not include a measure that allows people with concealed carry permits in one state to carry across state lines in a comprehensive gun bill. “I think that maybe that bill will one day pass, but it should pass separate,” Trump said during a bipartisan ...
   
   I don’t like this idea and there will be a lot of resistance to this idea that the customs and barbarous practices of red states are to be just accommodated in progressive areas without controversy. Trump may well be spot on for once by recognizing that in the current political climate, this is not going anywhere.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like typical Trump to me - tossing ideas and thoughts out that have not been thoroughly considered.  "Brainstorming", if you will.
      
      Can he get away with actually acting on such ideas?  Well, Obama did when he decided not to follow the law with dreamers and when he decided that every American will purchase a product they don't want, but I trust the intense hate from the left will shut Trump down more effectively.  Certainly they've already shut down legal efforts to stop terrorists from entering and efforts to force cooperation from sanctuary cities/states in enforcing legal federal laws.  (Did you see where the mayor of Oakland publicly announced an ICE raid, giving criminals plenty of time to hide from law enforcement?)

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Sounds like typical Trump to me - tossing ideas and thoughts out that have not been thoroughly considered.  "Brainstorming", if you will.
         
         If Obama made the kind of suggestions that you excuse Trump for, you would be climbing the walls and we both know this.  It was pretty stupid to let such ideas be exposed publically.
         -------------------------------------------------
         Can he get away with actually acting on such ideas?  Well, Obama did when he decided not to follow the law with dreamers and when he decided that every American will purchase a product they don't want, but I trust the intense hate from the left will shut Trump down more effectively.
         
         You are 'blowing more smoke'? The "Obamacare' was subject to legislative action, so Obama did not decide but it was voted on and approved by Congress. That is the way it is when you have a majority in Congress, the GOP majorities should know all about that with the sheer rubbish they have been ramming down our throats during the last year. For you to compare that with Trump dismissing a fundamental principle of American law is not the same, his  unjustified confiscation of guns without due process is beyond the pale. 
         
         No time for hatred, but the man is a dope whom it is easier to dislike than allowing a ball to drop. Only the handful with their noses firmly planted in his gluteus  maximum have any use for him.  Trump will do himself in for me with a glass of hemlock of his own making, it is stupid to put himself in a position to have even his own base question his loyalty.
         ----------------------------------
           Certainly they've already shut down legal efforts to stop terrorists from entering and efforts to force cooperation from sanctuary cities/states in enforcing legal federal laws.  (Did you see where the mayor of Oakland publicly announced an ICE raid, giving criminals plenty of time to hide from law enforcement?)
         
         I need to get up to speed on ICE raid article and get back to you on it. But on the surface, if this is what actually had happened, I am going to have a problem with it.
         -------------------------

         replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Plenty of conservatives don't understand the 2nd Amendment either.
      
      Especially that part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... ."

      replyreport
      1. 75

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         That they don't try and use the phrase as an excuse to disarm America does not mean they don't understand it.  Quite the contrary - they understand it very well!  Far more so that those that think that if you're not a registered member of an official, government run military means that the right listed does not apply.

         replyreport
      2. 87

         Readmikenowposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Promisen,
         
         I would like to know what your interpretation of "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State... ."
         
         Do you know what a militia was at the time when this was written? It was not individuals who were paid to be soldiers.
         
         I would also like to know your interpretation of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
         
         How about this quote from Thomas Jefferson.  "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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."
         - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

         replyreport
         1. 69

            JAKE Earthshineposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            "a well regulated militia" was and is an army of people. The text book definitions of the entire vocabulary within the 2nd amendment has not changed. Research the definitions.
            
            Why did you segregate the sentence within the amendment? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" if of course said "people" are affiliated with a "well regulated militia". individual private ownership is prohibited via the amendment.The meaning is unambiguous.

            replyreport
         2. 87

            Readmikenowposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So, then I suppose the constitution was referring to civilian militias?  The Michigan Militia as well as the Militia of Montana and others have no ties to the government, and yet they do fit the definition of an army of people.  So, I suppose they have a right to bear arm?.  I don't agree that individual, private ownership is prohibited.  I don't see the words individual or private or prohibited.  In order for individuals to be part of a civilian militia, they have to be able to have guns.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               JAKE Earthshineposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               An "ARMY" of individuals which are "Well Regulated" and led like George Washington's army and or armies of today, law enforcement etc.
               
               "Well Regulated" i.e. supervised by a superior(s), trained with explicit rules and regs of engagement, policies, well organized etc. there is a distinct difference between the United States Military, all troops which are legally in possession of firearms, and a bunch of unaffiliated buddies illegally running around with guns. 
               
               The amendment does not apply to rogue, un-supervised private civilian individuals even if they try to disguise themselves as a 'militia'. Our founders would be horrified by the gross abuse and perversion of our constitution, with over 300 million guns in private hands, including unnecessary mass murder weapons of war such as semi/automatic rifles.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Readmikenowposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Interesting  interpretation.  Some history is essential.  I'm sure you realize many of the militias during the Revolutionary war era were not professional military.  They were people who were farmers, store owners etc. who would take their gun to defend themselves, property and others against the tyranny of the English government.  So, our country was often defended by unsupervised private civilians. Ever hear of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys?  Major military victories made possible by civilian militias during the Revolutionary War, as well as the War of 1812 and others.  Rather than horrified, I believe the founding fathers would encourage civilian militias to be ready like the civilian militias were ready during their time.  This is the reason I believe the founding fathers would support civilians owning any weapon they choose.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     JAKE Earthshineposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     You’ve made a good case for a 2nd amendment ban on firearms for private civilians. Your story if true, is one of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was drafted, ratified and adopted. Your story, once again if accurate, must have occurred between the years of the mid 1770’s and 1783, prior to and or during the revolutionary war. This violent fight for immigrant freedom happened prior to 1791 when the amendment was enacted, years after the war ended.
                     
                     The 2nd amendment was written for the explicit purpose of organizing, regulating, training, and controlling a centralized defensive force bearing arms, i.e. a “well regulated” army led by professionals with a mandate to protect the state. Rogue individuals with guns acting as vigilantes was of course prohibited by the new law. The 2nd amendment was one way our forefathers began to establish law, order, a well trained and equipped army and of course to foster a civilized group of colonies.
                     
                     “ 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”
                     
                     
                     You must agree as all rational human beings do, that unnecessary weapons of war such as semi/automatic machine guns which are designed to kill en masse, must be banned immediately and the collection of said weapons must begin ASAP right? How many mass shootings are you willing to tolerate before we take serious action?

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        Readmikenowposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I could not disagree with you more.  You are not the sole provider of the definition of "rational human beings."  Since when has government bans ever worked?  We have a ban on heroin, and this means you believe there is no heroin?  I believe the second amendment was written specifically to maintain an armed population of citizen able to defend itself against government tyranny.  You seem to not understand the purpose or history of a militia.  You need to remember it is "Rogue Individuals" with guns who helped win this country its independence from England as well as defend it in several wars.  Please, read more about Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys as well as other historical Militia groups.  They're a big part of American history.  Before we punish law abiding citizens, we need to discuss the monumental failures of government in the Florida shooting.  The Sheriff's department as well as FBI failed big time. This man did everything but tell them the date and time of the shooting.  Also, explain how all the gun laws in Chicago have not stopped shooting there "en masse?"  Sorry, more government and more laws never solve anything.  Passing more laws is like throwing a cup of water on a 5 alarm fire.  You didn't solve it, but at least you did something.

                        replyreport
                        1. 69

                           JAKE Earthshineposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           I'm very familiar with history, especially American History and I'm also very familiar with the English Language and how sentences are formed and constructed which makes the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, a passage which is as unambiguous as it gets, rather easy for me and most other rational persons.
                           
                           "A well regulated militia" is exactly that, a regulated, well trained and controlled army of individuals just like todays United States Military, Some people, primarily of the republican persuasion try to confuse the public by saying there's some kind of secret, crazy underlying "ILLUMINATI' type meaning that can be discovered somewhere between the lines, but that's certainly not the case, there is no mystery, it means what it means.
                           
                           Furthermore, the constitution has been rendered invalid by Mr. Trump's Russian Presidency anyway. How could we possibly have a valid constitution when our so called president is in violation of it every single day by accepting monetary consideration from America's enemies?

                           replyreport
                           1. 87

                              Readmikenowposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              "Furthermore, the constitution has been rendered invalid by Mr. Trump's Russian Presidency anyway."  As far as I'm concerned, you've lost the argument.

                              replyreport
                              1. 69

                                 JAKE Earthshineposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Your opinion is certainly your prerogative. So if we still have a valid constitution, 2nd amendment included, why is one individual who apparently believes the laws don't apply to him, namely a so called president with strange hair, face and skin, receiving monetary consideration and or gifts daily from any and all foreign entities including our primary adversaries and perhaps even terrorist groups, an unconscionable conflicting and criminal act which is a blatant violation of said constitution? And why are some republicans still defending criminal actions such as this instead of calling for his impeachment?
                                 
                                 Mr. Trump will indeed be removed, hopefully in short order, and his willingness to violate the constitution while serving as an elected public official for personal monetary gain will be one of many reasons why. Despite the fact that Russians helped him rendering his presidency illegitimate.

                                 replyreport
                        2. 81

                           Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Mike,
                           We have speed limits on our highways and byways, is it a perfect solution to prevent people from operating motor vehicles at unsafe speeds? No. But the law itself will deter most of the public from not exceeding the limit for fear of ticketing or arrest. Sounds like a pretty effective government law to me.
                           
                           Also a question for you gun folks? You do not include what is considered military ordinance as part of your 'right to bear arms' do you? Is there any kind of limits for conservatives in this regard?

                           replyreport
                           1. 75

                              wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              "Is there any kind of limits for conservatives in this regard?"
                              
                              I think you answered your own question:
                              
                              "You do not include what is considered military ordinance as part of your 'right to bear arms' do you?"

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Thanks, Wilderness, but do you think that Mike would accept that definition?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 75

                                    wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Actually, I do.  I have yet to see him advocate for public ownership of machine guns, bazookas, RPG's, bombs/missiles, etc.  He hasn't suggested we scatter land mines over our front yards or fly armed drones over the neighbors homes.
                                    "Military ordinance" in other words.

                                    replyreport
            2. 0

               promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               They are not "well regulated" as the Amendment requires.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Except the amendment does not require that the people who's rights are discussed be "well regulated" at all.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I was addressing his question about the Michigan and Montana militias. Please stay on point.

                     replyreport
               2. 87

                  Readmikenowposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Promisen, how would you know they're not "well regulated?"  At the time the constitution was written this term was also used in the Federalist papers and refereed to a disciplined fighting force.  Many of these militias wear uniforms, conduct regular drills and are quite disciplined.  So, they are "well regulated." It is not associated with a government trained professional soldier.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Who makes certain they are "well regulated," Mike?

                     replyreport
         3. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            If you read legal rulings and interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, you will see there is widespread confusion and disagreement about the meaning of it, even among experts.
            
            Many of them at least agree it was badly written.
            
            The Amendment was seen as a collective right rather than an individual right until the right-wing Supreme Court came up with its own extreme interpretation in DC versus Heller.
            
            To answer your first question, I have said before the "militia" in America today is the well-regulated National Guard.
            
            Some legal interpretations say the Amendment is a private property right. That means guns are OK on private property but not on public property where they may infringe on the LIFE, liberty and happiness of other individuals.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Fortunately, there is only one interpretation that is correct; the one made by the organization designated by the constitution to make such determinations; the SCOTUS.  That you don't like "right wing" decisions is of no import at all.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Hardly. Look at the massive number of interpretations of the Amendment over centuries. There is no "one interpretation". There is only the most recent interpretation by a court that is stuffed with recent political favorites.
                  
                  That I don't like right-wing decisions contributing to mass murders is of import because I have a constitutional right to freedom of expression.
                  
                  Gun extremists love the 2nd Amendment, but they hate the 1st.

                  replyreport
      3. 81

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Plenty of conservatives don't understand the 2nd Amendment either.
         
         Especially that part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... ."
         ---------------------
         
         Hi, Promisem, This reminds me of that ancient game show "To Tell the Truth", will the REAL conservative please stand up?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Hey Cred, Relative to understanding the 2nd Amendment?
            
            
            Source:Wikimedia Commons 2006 Supreme Court "Class Picture"
            
            It's not a meme, and I didn't photoshop it to show them standing, but it does answer the question
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Hey Cred, Relative to understanding the 2nd Amendment?
               -----------
               Hi, GA,
               
               Yes, I suppose that is what I mean. It seems like the understating of the provision differs between the view held by Wilderness, Promisem and, probably, you as well. Of course as an abashed lefty, I am going to see it all differently.
               
               Are you going to come out and play?

               replyreport
2. 87

   Readmikenowposted 7 years ago

   Obama had a study conducted concerning gun violence.  Defensive use of a firearm happens far more often than a mass shootings.  It appears the study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows millions of people each year are alive because they were able to use firearms for defense.
   
   
   “The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
   
   https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … narrative/

   replyreport