Reply #67: What is GOP/NRA?

[DissedByBush]

They are two separate organizations, sometimes in opposition to each other on the common issue.

"You're missing the point that no matter what you choose to call it, the GOP will distort it for their own benefit -"

The only thing about this the GOP distorts is the truth about its supposed support for 2nd Amendment rights.

"NRA has been radicalized by GOP to move government to the right "

Absolutely idiotic. The NRA retains one issue, and has gone AGAINST the GOP on it often.

"Are you in denial of violence in the cities caused by guns?"

I think you are in denial of violence in the cities caused by criminals and blame a tool. Get back to me when guns start roaming the city killing people on their own.

"The second amendment is simply about a militia -- we all know that."

The militia in this sense is every man armed for his own defense and that of the free state (not necessarily the established government). It is not the Army. The militia (all men armed) was supposed to the the last defense against an oppressive government using the standing army for despotism. From James Madison, father of the Constitution:

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops

"And all original drafts of the amendment make that clear"

Really?

New Hampshire wanted

"Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion."

Pennsylvania wanted

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

North Carolina and Rhode Island had similar requests. North Carolina wouldn't even ratify until this was in the Constitution.

About drafts, the first draft read

"A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

As I said, all people. The security of a free state means free, as opposed to non-free that an oppressive government can obtain against an unarmed populace. It's clear all the way through that this was always considered an individual right. I can go back to the further historical basis of this, Blackstone.

A liberal person who cares about rights will generally read the Bill of Rights in the most rights-expansive interpretation possible. We all do it. We see separation of church and state. We see privacy for the right to choose. We see freedom to ingest the substances you choose. None of those are explicitly in the Constitution, but we know the intent, we know it's meant to support the rights of the PEOPLE utmost over attempts of an oppressive government to control them.

Then it's strange that those who claim to be so liberal use the most rights-restricting reading of only that ONE amendment.

You don't care about protecting rights. You only care about protecting rights YOU like.