Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:46 PM
struggle4progress (88,541 posts)
Armed to the teeth: The US obsession with guns
Senior Democrat leads moves in Congress to challenge the power and insidious influence of the National Rifle Association
SUNDAY 16 DECEMBER 2012
... A senior Democrat, John Larson, who represents Connecticut, called for Congress to look at sweeping new gun control measures, including banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
This followed President Obama's call on Friday for "meaningful action" on gun violence, which was criticised as being too vague. Mr Larson, who is chair of the House of Representatives Democratic Caucus, said Congress must vote quickly on tighter gun controls, including the institution of background checks for all gun sales.
He added: "Politics be darned. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in our nation's history, half of them have happened in the last five years. And there is not a single person in America who doesn't fear it will happen again." He is backed by the Republican mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, New York Democrat Representative Carolyn McCarthy and California Representative George Miller.
An indication of the forces that stand between the US and more stringent gun control laws was evident in this year's Tennessee congressional race. Republican Debra Maggart had not faced a primary challenge for her seat in the state's House of Representatives since her election in 2004. But in August she lost to a rival GOP candidate who was backed by the National Rifle Association. In an ad campaign, the NRA called Ms Maggart an enemy of the constitution, because she opposed a law allowing employees to bring guns to the workplace. The NRA claims the measure – already in place in 17 other states – is necessary for commuters to protect themselves on their journey to work ...
5 replies, 1322 views
Armed to the teeth: The US obsession with guns (Original post)
|jimmy the one||Dec 2012||#3|
|jimmy the one||Dec 2012||#4|
|jimmy the one||Dec 2012||#5|
Response to sanatanadharma (Reply #2)
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:20 AM
jimmy the one (2,204 posts)
3. 2nd Amendment Miller case 1939, UNANIMOUS DECISION
The 2nd Amendment is obsolete, there is no well regulated citizens militia anymore. The militia act of 1792 was superceded by the militia act circa 1916, which created two classes of militia which exist today, 1) the national guards (1% of eligible americans) and 2) the unorganized militia (99% of eligible americans). The 'unorganized militia', by definition of the word 'unorganized', fails the 2ndA litmus test, in that it is not a well regulated militia. The unorganized militia is not what the founding fathers intended.
(from my book): The Supreme Court last considered a second amendment case prior to 2008, in 1939 the Frank Miller case. It unanimously decided, 9 - 0, in favor of a militia interpretation of the 2ndA (note that the 2008 individual rights ruling was narrowly split 5 to 4).
.. here are two excerpts from what the supreme court ruled in 1939, when Frank Miller carried a sawed off shotgun across state lines & subsequently argued 2nd Amendment protection:
1) "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
2) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.."
Those two passages were from the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court ruling in 1939, and
seem to be pretty self explanatory, yes?
Prudent people might wonder why, if (the 2008 scalia supreme court5 ruling) were so, at least one of the 1939 Supreme Court Justices wouldn't have objected to the above wordings, 'hold on fellow justices, look at the way we've worded our ruling & opinions, future generations are going to think we ruled for a militia rights interpretation.'
Yet not one single 1939 Justice objected - they were satisfied that what they wrote was fit & proper, and expressed their opinion of what the Second Amendment entailed, a right incumbent upon a well regulated militia.
Disregarding this & accepting the gun lobby's rendition, the 2008 Supreme Court5 altered historical precedent and subverted the 2ndA's intent. In essence they ruled that the vast preponderance of previous historical appellate court judgements were wrong, the 1939 Miller case was not as it seemed, and the prevailing view for the past hundred years & more had been in error, and that they five, with the blessings of an obviously biased special interests group, were the correct arbiters of what transpired in 1791.
Response to jimmy the one (Reply #3)
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:28 AM
jimmy the one (2,204 posts)
4. Oliver & Story
Benjamin Oliver, from Right of an American Citizen, 1832: "The provision of the constitution, declaring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, &c. was probably intended to apply to the right of the people to bear arms for such (militia-related) purposes only, and not to prevent congress or the legislatures of the different states from enacting laws to prevent the citizens from always going armed. A different construction however has been given to it."
Justice Joseph Story, early 1800's: .. though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline,and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations.
How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt, and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights."
When Justice Story observed in his final sentence - that militia indifference might gradually undermine all the protection intended by the 2ndA - he could not possibly have been referring to an individual right to keep & bear arms, since it was a militia disconnect which was his concern.
Response to jimmy the one (Reply #4)
Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:31 AM
jimmy the one (2,204 posts)
5. pro gun 2nd A ads on DU?
Is anyone else seeing these pro 2nd amendment ads atop their DU screen?
NRA Christmas Cards Holiday Cards From the NRA. Free Personalization With 3 Boxes! holidaycardcenter.org/NRA
Best Concealed Carry Gun Find Out Which Concealed Guns Are The Best for Concealed Carry Here!
Isn't this sorta counter productive to DU's very existence? especially this week of dec 2012??
Say it ain't so, DU.