I have a question pertaining to the second amendment...
The second amendment reads, "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."
The question I have pertains to the portion about a well regulated Militia being needed for the security of a free State. Does, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," not imply that though the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon, it can and should be regulated? If not, then why even mention the necessity of a well regulated Militia?
Thing you could probably do is take a look at the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v Heller. The language of the amendment is broken down phrase by phrase and explained with sources and supporting evidence.
The term “militia” refers to the pool of men who would be called upon to fight. In this case the term “regulated” refers to the organizational structure of that militia imposed by the state in the event of a war. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the people (especially the 18 to 45 year old white males who would make up the militia in the event of war) had an irrevocable right to weapons that the government could never challenge.
Here is part of the text from their decision. You can find it here. http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v.Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist
No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”). Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12.
Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Excellent question. The words "well regulated" has nothing to do with gun control...it is in reference to a militia which is well trained and disciplined in accordance with existing law. Again, the 2nd Amendment guarantees American's right to bear arms for security against criminals and the government or a criminal government.
Mental illness kills... guns are just one of the tools of mayhem, it is inert until it is utilized for the purpose it was intended... and that takes action initiated by a supposed sapient being, does it not?
"One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" actually is a New Leftist book that was written to promote Left-winger ideology. At that time, the attack on Western culture - American in particular - was in full swing. The message was clear: The ESTABLISHMENT, the society, was sick. That was part of the onslaught of the Left-wingers on our culture, our heritage, our traditions, our values, and our history.
Left-wingers asserted that American society stifled creativity and individuality, and that people were misguided and mistaken in trying to adapt and be comfortable in an insane society. Books proliferated in psychology departments emphasizing how so-called psychological disorders were normal and expected responses to a dysfunctional American society. Left-wingers wanted to “liberate” man from civilization because civilization simply was not worth the price of repressions. Man must liberate himself from family, work, church, and moral conventions.
In Marcuse’s “Eros and Civilization,” published in 1955, the primary enemy was work, because it negated the “pleasure principle.”
Other widely-read books included “The Myth of Mental Illness,” by Thomas Szasz, in which it was maintained that madness is the fault of society. Psychosis is a political statement, a protest, and society has to change.
“Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates” professed that the treatment of the mentally ill was really oppression of the powerless; behaviors were nothing but the product of the surrounding culture.
In the “Politics of Experience” the author insisted that modern man had been driven crazy by our culture. Modern man had become materialistic, and this wreaked havoc on his ego and alienated him: Those who are considered "sane" by society are really the insane, and adjustment to a crazy world is not sane.
Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was first published in 1962 and was made into a movie a decade later. It tells the viewers that the people running the institutions are the crazy ones, and they are the ones who support the real insidious element infesting our society: conformity.
ALL ARE LEFT-WINGER ATTACKS ON WESTERN CIVILIZATION, ESPECIALLY AMERICA! WAKE UP!
Obvious lunatic right-wing-projection "lefties" under the bed! Behind the tree, under the rocks, oooh they're everywhere and their a-cumin ta abert yur sister-wives bebees, and takes aways yur gunz! Run ta da hillz!
MDs in Florida tried to make firearms interviews a standard with all patients and are claiming infringement on their "first amendment rights" when a patient says that medical inquiry into their firearms ownership isn't any of the MDs business. MDs are dangerous enough already, since they are one of the top three causes of preventable death in the US.
Can't wait for this 'movement' to take hold and expand to interviews before all gun sales. It'll be a hoot to watch the battle between MDs without clientele and the good ol boys down at the gun shop, as they lobby for who gets the right to conduct the screening interviews.
Yep. The modern Authoritarian Elite Doctrine (read: corporate officers who are afraid of people) want media to keep you afraid of (in no particular order):
people of color
people who are un-rich
women who refuse to be doormats
kids learning critical thinking skills
people who love other people without regard to gender
people who dress differently
people who eschew all the latest consumer products
people who can grow their own food
people who can defend themselves
We have seen all those, and more, repeatedly demonized. We have seen attempts made to keep the masses fearful.
Do you actually believe that there is some kind of "Authoritarian Elite Doctrine?"
Take any one. The first: "People of color."
Take a look at the media. In the movies, "people of color" are protrayed more and more as just another human being in popular movies. The movies do not make references to the differences. Look at newscasters and politicians. Herman Cain, Condi Rice. Writers like Thomas Sowell - just one or two generations ago, this would be unheard of.
Look at stories in the media, popular culture and so on concerning the "un-rich": You will see the themes of them struggling against the rich or rising from being an underdog in some fashion.
There is no media wanting to keep people afraid of what you claim, none at all. Not a whit.
It is a tactic of the Left: Claim that anyone who is against the Left-winger dogma has some kind of emotional problem. It can be a disorder, or they may be frustrated, angry, have "unmet needs," be "phobic" in some way, and so on. All that the Left is doing is taking a clue from what the Communists used to do: Claim anyone who disagrees with the ideology is insane and in need of rehabilitation or treatment.
This is what they set up, and the Left-wingers would put dissenters either here, in prisons or in electric chairs:
Another group to fear: the employees of institutions who are employed to fill beds in institutions with people who have insurance coverage. Once in, on the say-so of a psychologist/bounty hunter, people pretty much lose their civil rights.
Not one of those doctors claimed that. They merely questioned the norm and the root cause of the problem. The anti-gun nut Webster is the only one touting such none-sense. Any of the claims, they just say 'doctors'. What fucking doctors? None of the one's you quoted support the outrageous claim...
Any of the doctors quotes are either widely unrelated.. C'mon, guard rails? Or discuss mental screening processes. It's not really an 'outbreak' of gun related crime... No ones reporting on the countless cases where firearms have STOPPED crime... because no one died. We're so stuck up with the fatal shootings, which just happen, there's no way to stop it. Gun control can help a bit with the screening, but medicating people to forget about protecting themselves? We're already at that point! That's why this damn article even EXISTS. If you're mentally unstable, and it's proven, or you've committed crimes, YOU CANNOT OWN A FIREARM (in most states). This already EXISTS and it's SENSIBLE. The problem is the people that slip through the cracks! The system is flawed... It's not the responsible gun owners fault, nor is it the fault of the gun. Fix the goddamn system! It's corrupt and broken!
If anyone is sick here, it's the damn media... including private blogs. What garbage and nonsense!
Actually there are countries where gun ownership is supported and they do not have semi monthly mass shootings. Those countries have higher taxes and provide better education and access to mental health care. If you support the Second Amendment then you should also support a tax increase to programs that will keep our people sane.
Besides, most if not all of these high profile media hyped shootings are questionable events, with official reports nearly always contradicting the reports of eye witnesses with the most common being lone gunman vs multiple shooters etc.
If they are not staged outright, then at the very least they are being used by the media for political effect and to terrorize the public into supporting anti-second amendment gun control measures.
Considering his dad's job, if the whole thing was set up and a frame of James Holmes, it seems like more of a move to intimidate other whistle-blowers more than ramp up anti-gun fervor.
Reports are that Robert Holmes, who develops algorithms to monitor banking behaviors, was soon to testify re LIBOR and other banking outrages. Can't find any MSM sourcing but it wouldn't be the first time M$M buried the lead.
So you are not conceding that countries which have fewer gun laws and lower crime have a healthier population which would actually provide a basis for keeping the Second Amendment.
Instead you are saying that our culture is not overly violent; but our government is staging shootings are part of a mass conspiracy in order to eliminate the Second Amendment. A conspiracy that includes his mother, father, friends and the real James Holmes himself.
No, I'm just refuting your obviously false claim that the US has "semi monthly mass shootings." I'm also saying that the shootings may not happen as portrayed on the TeeVee, as eye witnesses usually report multiple shooters.
I conclude that the media engages in selective reporting when it comes to gun crimes and over-hypes certain shootings to further an anti-gun agenda.
I'm not engaging in any James Holmes conspiracy theory. Those are quite obviously two different people, no theory there. I don't care to speculate on anything beyond the fact that those two photos are not of the same person.
I love how all the comments here fail to actually address the situation. I don't own a gun, never did and most likely never will. BUT I will fight to uphold Americans right to own a gun. And want of protection of you and yours is not a mental problem. Ask Rosie O"Donnell.....
I am of the opinion that the gross majority of firearm fixation in the United States is linked to the same reason why a lot of men love to drive large 4x4 trucks, SUV's, or sports cars that are completely impractical. They are insecure about their penises and feel the need to compensate.
in its context, at the wild wild west time, the 2nd amendments had a reason to exist, citizen needed their own protection, police and army were scarse.
Nowadays it is just achieving the opposite, it's simply over flooding the streets with guns, so any smoke head, teen in crisis, idiots, disappointed, angry and deranged can own an arsenal and use it, remember you don't need to be brave, sober neither smart to kill people with a gun!
I donno where you got that number, but assuming you're right, it's a gross misunderstanding...
Do you own just one kitchen knife? Well, i bet you there's 4 knives per every person... Probably more if you're a fan of kitchen cutlery...
Just because it's 88guns/100 people does not mean 88 people/100 have guns! I myself own many.. some for fun, some for hunting, some for home defense. Some for collectors value! It's just another item. And they're all used responsibly... That's at least 5 guns under one responsible citizen... Not that extraordinary.
Even if there 1000 guns per person, the same problems that create crime, even 'gun crime' (not a 'special' crime) would still exist.... And even flip it, 1 gun per 1000 people... The problems that create the crime would STILL EXIST. now... wait a minute, just think about that second situation for a second...
That sounds like one person has power over 1000 people, and the ONE tool that can do it. It's irrespective of the amount of guns, however, a widely disarmed population is at the whims of those that are armed. I'd rather there be more guns (controlled and handled responsibly), then none at all... leaving a few in the hands of people who have absolutely NO respect for the law.
Around my rural 'hood, it's that + too many John Wayne movies and the failure to grasp that movies are not real.
The good news is, their offspring of drivers' license age get bored with FOX news and go out on the roads to play Fast & Furious. They do not grasp that movie stunts have little to do with real life driving, so the breeding population of this demographic will drop.
Hey, do ya think that is why RW pols are all up in vaginas and trying to force the wimmins to give birth, even in the case of rape or incest?
Nope, they're fraidy cats. Based more on ignorance rather than genitalia. You don't even want to be in my area during hunting season when the jackasses from other places (and usually more urban) come here, liquor up to go after Bambi and shoot at anything they don't understand, LOL!
A lot of us live in areas where police and army are STILL scarce. I live in a county that is huge, area wise, yet has a population that is roughly 1/2 the enrollment of the high school I attended. We have 2 law enforcement officers. Two. And neither are actually qualified or trained for the job.
Cops in my family agreed: the police are really just there to draw the chalk outline of your body. And those family cops were in L.A. County and San Bernadino County, in California, where cops and army guys are pretty thick.
Damnit! Stop shooting down my pointless and false commentaries about how these things are related to how men are overly sensitive about their own insecurities about or involving their own reproductive organs!
You might be just the person to collaborate with me on a story about some young (paintball) guns who challenge some Vietnam-era veterans to a paintball war. I have the vets showing up in limos, wearing tuxedos.....
Actually saw two dairy cows with COW painted on their sides in day-glow orange and pink paint, in the FENCED yard of a cabin outside Lincoln, MT. The two retrievers there each had on orange hunters' vests.
A 12 year old boy on a John Deere green tractor was shot and killed by 'hunters' not far from here a few years back. And in a bit of irony that can't be beat, one hunter was shot by another, while sitting on the bed in his motel room. The guy who shot him was a stranger in another room.
It's scary when idiots like that are out and about.
geez...the farmers in Wisconsin used to put their Jersey cows in the barn when the Chicago hunters came to town with their high powered rifles...somebody, I don't know who, took a shot at a hawk in my backyard the other day, and if I find out who did it, there is going to be hell to pay.
I didn't dare take my golden retriever out for a run at our local fair grounds during hunting season. He was the same color as the antelopes and it was too big a risk even so close to town.
When the one hunter shot through the motel wall and hit another one, I stopped walking the dog IN town during hunting season. Hell, I stopped walking myself. Opted for a stationery bike and took the car the three blocks to the store.
"You think 88 guns per 100 people is little much?"
Since the average household size is 2.6 people in the United States, that ratio is probably not needed. If it dropped to about 78 per 100 people, then the average household would have 2 guns, and that should be plenty.
I plan to have a pistol for going outside, and a shotgun in the house. If someone in a hoodie comes in my house at night, it would be hard to draw an accurate bead on him, and he might have a gun - With a shotgun, I can just blast him and not worry about accuracy. But outside, muggers and thieves come close, so a pistol would be fine. A 9 mm has been recommended by police, but I need to do some more research.
"A 9 mm has been recommended by police, but I need to do some more research."
A 9mm is excellent, but anything with a larger round will kick harder and carry fewer rounds. Besides, a 9mm has plenty of stopping power for the average person.
If you are concerned with jamming, I'd recommend a .38 revolver. They only carry six rounds, but they have plenty of stopping power themselves and are much simpler guns to disassemble to clean and maintain.
No matter what kind of gun you decide to get though, shop around. If you can, visit an indoor firing range that rents different guns and try them out. Not only will you get a feel for what kind of caliber you are comfortable with, but you will also get a feel for what guns have grips that you are comfortable with. This is very important because not everyone has the same sized or shaped hands, obviously, and it is very important that a gun you have feels comfortable to grip properly. For example, my grandpa has a .38 revolver with a slightly larger grip and it feels wonderful in my hands. The best accuracy I've gotten with pistols was with that gun. On the other hand, my dad's girlfriend has her own .38 revolver, but the grip is much smaller. As a result, it feels very odd in my hands as if it is going to jump out of my hand each time I fire it, and I can't hit the broad side of a barn with that thing because my hands cannot get a steady grip on something that small.
The same holds true with semi-automatic pistols, but to a lesser degree. Though the grips are not really interchangeable like they are on revolvers, they will each have a different feel and your overall grip and aim will be effected.
They are simply trying to divert attention from the fact that THEY are the greatest danger to the public health, NOT WEAPONS. 783,936 people killed by doctors EVERY YEAR. 6200 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM YOUR DOCTOR THAN A WEAPON.
This video is more important when doctors are trying to say that people that support the 2nd amendment suffer from mental disorder... what does that make them suffer from?
You post that 783,936 people are killed by doctors every year. But how many are saved every year by doctors? Now subtract your total and see how it adds up. And i'm not even sure how accurate those numbers are in the first place.
Putting statistics in perspective is important , I agree. But unfortunately 'successful transactions' between either a physician or gun distributor is not as easy to find or at least for me anyways, because after some research I can not find hard numbers as to the amount of people under doctors care ( for example there are millions on medicare and Medicaid but nothing about private practice) or the number of legal weapons sold in the country. I wouldn't mind some help on the subject. Getting back to 'failures' the number for doctors -vs- gun fatalities is pretty overwhelming.
Another fact that is often overlooked about the 2nd amendment is that it is a RIGHT expressly for the protection against GOVERNMENT. Personal protection was secondary. Government workers are PRIVILEGED to an extension of that right by Judges empowered by the PEOPLE. An individual is more likely to see a UFO than be a victim of gun violence.
Some say there are far more weapons than citizens.. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2834893820070828?irpc=932... but even if everyone of the 314 million Americans had a doctor the numbers of those killed through doctors care would be much GREATER, that is something that deserves attention . Yes there are tragedies from time to time, nothing is 100% safe but when looking for real threats , perspective is everything ;)
When someone in the care of a dr recovers do u think it's because the dr saved their life, or perhaps it's this incredible human machine that keeps on in spite of them? That statistic is much harder to show than Obvious malpractice mistakes resulting In death. Would u disagree?
I don't think it can be measured. I was just pointing out that he's only talking about one side of the equation, and the numbers he used don't even look factual. And you're right, you might recover on your own without doctors. He also leaves out how many years preventative medicine has added on to peoples lives. These numbers would be very hard to quantify.