Rick Perry Responds to Obama's Gun Proposal: "No Gun Law Could Have Saved the Children"

Categories: Politics

Thumbnail image for PerryWithaShotGun.jpg
In a midday press conference, President Obama laid out proposals to combat gun violence. You can read them in full here. In a nutshell, he called for background checks on all gun sales and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Rick Perry wasted no time in issuing a proclamation of his own, saying that "very few of his recommendations have anything to do with what happened there" at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

"Guns require a finger to pull the trigger," he said. "The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror."

"There is evil prowling in the world -- it shows up in our movies, video games and online fascinations, and finds its way into vulnerable hearts and minds," he went on. "As a free people, let us choose what kind of people we will be. Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice. Let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help. Above all, let us pray for our children."

"In fact, the piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The second amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president."

My Voice Nation Help
79 comments
hiswaqsmbosaksawaas
hiswaqsmbosaksawaas

This is a petition I began because of the ammunition shortage in America. It is on the White House website under "We the People". Please read it and if you agree, sign it and pass it on to as many like minded people you can think of. Your rights depend on it. It is my believe that the weapons ban is a Red Herring and we are being disarmed without constitutional violation by the depletion of the ammunition supply to the general public. Even if you don't agree, thank you for taking the time to read this E-mail and I encourage you all to make inquiries and look up some of the staggering facts about this subject on your own. Googling "Government Stockpiling of Ammunition 2013" will get you started.


The petition requires 150 signatures before it will be open for public view on the White House website. It requires 100,000 signatures to be addressed publicly by the President of the United States. The deadline for achieving that goal is is April 7th 2013. A copy of this E-mail has been sent to the house and senate representatives for the state of Oregon.Wishing you all good health and happiness,
Donnie
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-investigate-federal-government-stockpiling-ammunition-and-demand-equal-sharing/bSy44fpx

MisterMean
MisterMean

Require all state representatives and senators to be packing loaded guns in their respective legislative chambers.  Any visitors to said chambers would be issued a loaded fire arm upon entering.  It would be relinquished when the visitor left.   Same would be required at any public meeting where said politician hosted.  Politicians would be required to have at least 1 meeting per month.  They could not restrict any citizen who attended said meeting.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

I don't agree with Rick Perry.  He's an idiot.

I do have one question for those on the left.  I'm not sure how to word it, because it is a tricky concept.  The President called the Newtown massacre a tragedy.  He directly related the tragedy to the potential left unfulfilled by so many lives cut down at a young age.  How can he call it a tragedy to lose so much potential after they are born, but not if they are aborted?  Is a fetus not a potential life, harboring the same potential that a newborn harbors?  Could the president look those four kids on his stage in the eye and tell them that he's glad they're here, but if their mother's had chosen to kill them in the womb, he'd have been happy to assist the process?  Like I said, it's a tricky concept, it requires some mental gymnastics way above my level.  For the record, I'm against abortion, but Pro-Choice.  Just like I'm against gun crimes but Pro-2nd Amendment.

alteredjustice
alteredjustice

I agree with Rick. We must PRAY for these people, so that this does not happen again!

Let me begin.

Lord, we humbly come before you as a nation to ask forgiveness. We know that we have sinned by downloading music through torrents, watching Milk, and cursing during football games. Please forgive us of our horrible sins so that these children may stop being horribly murdered at the hands of mentally insane people who CLEARLY are influenced by Satan. Any other explanation is Satan-approved, because we know that God wouldn't murder children, in his omnipotent jealousy and grace. THANK YOU Lord for teaching this evil country that children are the price for sins, and that if we don't behave more bad things will happen! AMEN!!!

rharpersvc
rharpersvc

Thats right, those who harm others should be held accountable. You need prayer....

roo_ster
roo_ster

Isn't often that I am in 100% agreement with Gov Goodhair. 

Gangy
Gangy

Rick Perry is evil.  Using the excuse that "the devil makes us do it" is ridiculous.  We have to take responsibility for establishing a safe community and nation.  Prayer is not sufficient.  Those who own dangerous things must be held accountable for recklessness with those things; for using those things to harm others; and for allowing someone else to have access to those dangerous things.

tam_tagon
tam_tagon

Evangelical politicians are ruining this country with hypocrisy and hyperbole.

P1Gunter
P1Gunter

If Prick Perry wasn't so damn focused on eliminating Planned Parenthood in this state, perhaps we could find the money to fund mental healthcare (which ironically, would cut abortions down).

But he isn't interested in results. His interest is his 2016 Presidential campaign.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

Perry says the "political agenda that would not have saved those children". This after he says "Let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help". Perry also incorrectly says "very few of [Obama's] reccomendations have anything to do" with what happened at Sandy Hook.

what a duffus. tighter controls of weapon access and who is allowed to purchase weapons won't help according to Perry, but somehow "help" to solve the problem will come from praying?

As for the incredible remark that the proposals aren't addressing the tragedy at Sandy Hook, there is one very clear item that reveals Perry's total ignorance: Page 9, "Encourage Owners to Live Up To Their Responsibility To Store Guns Safely". If the Sandy Hook shooter were not able to get his mother's guns, then yes, the tragedy would never have happended.

I'll annotate Perry's last remark to make it more accurate: "In fact, the piling on by the political right, and their cohorts at the NRA, to minimze the tragedies at Sandy Hook and Aurora to advance a pre-existing political agenda that put these victims at risk disgusts me, personally. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people that can be respected while at the same time instituting safeguards to reduce the risk of innocent people losing their lives to killers with guns."

cleaver.gavin
cleaver.gavin

There we have it - the solution to inevitable evil is to make guns more widely available. Shame on Obama for not realising this.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

<Makes knee jerk comment concerning gun laws and the 2nd Amendment, then piles on with a pithy sarcastic comment about L'il Ricky.  Continues on with an harangue about the media and the misrepresentation of the various scenarios.  Then concluding with thinly veiled sarcastic criticism as to how misguided the other posters are.  Finally adding a non sequitur postscript about police protection and home safety in order to conclude his post; and, sits back to await the comments of the antagonist posters and their comments.>

mcdallas
mcdallas topcommenter

Hard to find anyone who loves Perry, including yours truly.  That said, when you look at the President's proposals, there's literally not a single one of them that would have prevented Sandy Hook or any of the other recent mass tragedies.  At the end of the day, evil is evil.  And evil will find away around law every time.  


Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

Well hell?! Let's just give everybody an AK with a supersized mag but cut off their fingers so they don't kill nobody!

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

In other words, pray to the god that somehow allowed that event to happen for help even though for some reason he didn't help the kids. And don't you dare make any sort of modifications to a vague Constitutional amendment written during an era of muskets by men who couldn't even come close to contemplating the sheer power that our modern arms have, much less contemplate allowing non-whites or non-males or non-land-owners to vote, because dammit, we the non-majority of the country say so.

Rick Perry--proof God doesn't help Texas.


MisterMean
MisterMean

@RTGolden1

First a fetus is not a baby.Second it is none of your business what other’s do with their lives or their bodies.I am constantly amazed of the lack of outrage, by such people who seem to want to stick their noses where it does not belong, when we see reports of in the news of rampant child abuse by parents (the latest starving death of a young boy,the running to death of a young girl by her mother in Alabama, and the pedophilia of church against alter boys to name just a few).

You are pro birth not pro life-“once the child is born it’s not my concern” they say. Oh we can’t fund any health care for these children be cause that is socialism.I resent you trying to “earn” brownie points with God by trying to force your beliefs down others throats.

Again I ask (and have yet to hear a response like “I have”) how many unwanted children have you adopted?None I bet.Are you financially supporting your children who you have had (current with any child support?).“Oh can’t do that!”“Oh we can’t fund contraceptives because that is against “MY” beliefs –oh but I sure need Viagra because I can’t get it up anymore.”

I am tired of religious nuts constantly sticking their noses in others business that does not concern them.

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@Gangy By that logic no one should have access to vehicles and alcohol.  Awesome logic.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@SuperfuzzBigmuff 


Nope. No coming back from that disastrous 2012 campaign. What "The People" have seen cannot be unseen. Despite his executive-level coif, his Presidential aspirations were dealt a fatal blow by 3 things:


1) His arrogant no-compromise attitude has ensured he will never be a crossover candidate that can garner votes from the squishy center.


2) His financial shenanigans vis-a-vis the shady real estate ventures he's been involved in in the state of Texas will become public knowledge and further damage an already damaged brand.


3) ...and, um, ... *gimme' a minnit' here* um..... I can't seem to really recall what the third....

observist
observist

@mavdog  While the mass shootings are tragic, most rational gun control measures probably wouldn't have prevented them.  Columbine, Va Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Giffords - these were all disturbed people with no significant criminal record that would flag them in a background check.  They purchased the guns legally or got them from people that did.   However, there are about 10,000 homicides and 20,000 suicides committed every year with firearms in the US -- the vast majority of which are not carefully premeditated rampages, but mostly stupid, impulsive stuff done by stupid people who have far-too-easy access to guns.  Rational gun control measures could help reduce those numbers to a level more comparable with other industrialized countries.

mcdallas
mcdallas topcommenter

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul 

<ALL CAPS RESPONSE IN FIRST LINE OF RESPONSE.  Outdated, unsourced quote from the internetz.  Personal character attack.  Irrelevant first-hand experience.  ALL CAPS REINFORCEMENT OF WHY THIS POST IS BEING MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!![lots of punctuation at end of sentences]!!??!!

Question of sanity level of anyone who dares oppose this response.  Attempt to pre-empt counter-arguments to this argument.

"Quote from founding father" taken out of context.

Random, unrelated sentence.  ALL CAPS SIGN-OFF!?!?>

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

@mcdallas People drive over the limit. Should we just do away with speed limits because people drive over the limit? Fine by me cause I drive fast, but  I know how to pay attention and control my vehicle. Let's just let everybody go as fast as their 300 hp cars will go. What could possibly go wrong?

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@Scruffygeist That isn't how the Constitution works.  You don't get to second guess it.  Pick up some works by our Founding fathers.  You'd realize the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protect us from the tyranny of the government.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@MisterMean @RTGolden1 uh. thanks.  next time, try reading what I wrote, address the points within and then address those points.  That's what a reply is. 

First, I'm not trying to force my beliefs down anyone's throat, that's why I'm pro choice. (as I stated and your fevered brain must have missed).  Second, not that it is any of your damn business, but yes, I fully support my children, and donate to children's charities every chance I get.  I don't adopt because I'm not in a financial position to do so and provide much of a benefit to the child.  Before you go making grand accusations and snap judgements, get some facts.  If you ever paid any attention to my posts you'd know I fully support a woman's right to choose, am in favor of including contraception in public health options (because I'd rather pay to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than pay to support the results of one)

I'm tired of .... atheist, secular, liberal, or whatever kind of nut you are being generally nutty.

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

@j.walter.miller @Gangy

To drive a car you must pass a driving test, get a license, and obtain minimum amounts of liability insurance. All of these should be required of gun owners.

Gangy
Gangy

@j.walter.miller @Gangy That's where you're wrong.  We have regulations and laws about the responsible use of autos and alcohol.  People can be held legally accountable for their use of both.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

the Virginia Tech shooter had a history of mental illness that was not reported and his name was not inserted into the database. The VA laws were subsequently changed (by a Repub governor initiative btw) so that omission should not happen today. The Obama proposals include similar measures as was done in VA, and those would preclude a person with a history of mental illness from buying a gun. This would have likely also stopped the assault of Giffords and the Aurora shooter as well.

Sandy Hook happened due to a person with mental illness having the means to access their mother's guns. Having those guns stored at a range, or better security at the home, could have been effective. Should there be a prohibition on a person possessing weapons if they are sharing a home with a person diagnosed with mental illness? That is an interesting proposal that merits discussion. At the least a tough requirement for securing those weapons, with verification, is called for.

A criminal record is not sufficient, better coordination and reporting (HIPPA is a problem in this regard) on mental illness patients, as well as better care/help for those afflicted, are needed. These are included in the Obama proposals.

Long and short, Rick Perry is an idiot. but then that is stating the obvious....

mcdallas
mcdallas topcommenter

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul 

<Curse words thrown at other posters due to realization that previous response was not as intelligent as first thought.


ALL CAPS CURSE WORDS!!!???!!!>

mcdallas
mcdallas topcommenter

@Montemalone @mcdallas Seriously?  Was that a serious comment or are you alluding to the jokes taking place in this thread?  Where did I suggest doing away with anything?  Where did I suggest not enforcing current law?  Where did I suggest that nothing could go wrong (in fact, I asserted that anything can go wrong at any time b/c "evil is evil").

Speed limits are in place to prevent death.  They work.  They are (usually/often/sometimes/rarely) enforced.  If multiple accidents were occurring in a 70 mph zone, legislators and others can legally reduce the speed limit at that location, which would result in measurable less incidents.  People could say "if the speed limit were reduced months ago, these accidents wouldn't have happened".  The President's proposals don't work in your analogy of speeding.  Because unlike your analogy, none of his proposals would have prevented these tragedies.  None.

My comments about "evil is as evil does" (something like that) work for both gun laws and speeding laws.  If someone wants to go as fast as they can, they can do so.  They will get fined.  But they can do it,  regardless the speed limit.  If someone wants to kill lots of people, they can do it, regardless the gun control.  What I was saying is that the president's proposals could not have prevented the recent tragedies.  As much as we'd all like a new "speed limit" to legislate against future incidents, one must admit that the president's proposals as presented today couldn't have prevented these awful things from happening...

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@j.walter.miller "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."

Where exactly is tyranny defined in those 27 words?

MisterMean
MisterMean

I noted that in the paragraph that you are pro choice but upon that you posed:

The President called the Newtown massacre a tragedy.  He directly related the tragedy to the potential left unfulfilled by so many lives cut down at a young age.  How can he call it a tragedy to lose so much potential after they are born, but not if they are aborted?  Is a fetus not a potential life, harboring the same potential that a newborn harbors?  Could the president look those four kids on his stage in the eye and tell them that he's glad they're here, but if their mother's had chosen to kill them in the womb, he'd have been happy to assist the process?

Sorry I got confused between the two statements.

Get so many right wing nuts that your lengthy statement seemed anti choice to me.

MM

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@primi_timpano If I'm not mistaken, the ownership of a firearm is a Right, not a privilege.  Like voting.  The argument made against the various voter ID laws, correctly, is that the government can't make laws that would disenfranchise poorer people (paying for a state ID).  However, you seem to be perfectly ok with the government disenfranchising certain people of their 2nd Amendment right. (very much like Senators Schumer and Feinstein, they can have theirs, but we cannot have ours).

The sad thing is, through idiotic political divisions, we, as Americans, are letting the political establishment erode our natural rights, one by one.  Eminent Domain has made private property an empty concept.  'Proper time, place, and manner' put needless restrictions on free speech and assembly.  Red light cameras do away with the concept of the accused being able to face his accuser in court.  The use of medical records in court erodes your right against self-incrimination. The list is nearly endless.  All the pols have to do is find a right that some group cares little about and pound it into submission, using the full panopoly of media tools at their disposal.  Today, it is 2nd amendment rights.  A bit over a year ago it was speech and assembly rights (Occupy, however much I disagreed with their message and tactics, had their 1st amendment rights trampled.) 

Freedom isn't on a sliding scale.  You can't be 80% free.  You are either a free person, or you aren't.  If you give up one iota of your personal liberty, you are a subject, not a citizen.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@j.walter.miller If you're going to attempt to quote the language over and over, at least get it right. Nowhere in the amendment is "upon."

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@primi_timpano "Shall not be infringed upon".  Think about that for a second.  All that sounds real nice and probably warms your "I really really care" liberal heart.  None of that will change the behavior of murderous individuals. 

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@drtz You do realize there a huge, huge sporting community that is composed of hunters and other marksmen, right?  Don't be daft.

drtz
drtz

@roo_ster @Gangy @j.walter.miller 

This is a disgusting and very weak analogy.  You're suggesting that we equate a tool whose sole purpose is killing to a tool designed for transportation.

observist
observist

@mavdog  All the mass shooters mentioned above obviously had serious mental health problems, but from what I can tell, only Cho had been recognized by any kind of government authority as being mentally ill.  Most of the others had problems in school and jobs, may have been expelled or fired, people thought they were strange, scary or possibly violent, but they didn't really have interactions that got them "into the system".  Mostly people wanted to be rid of them from their school or workplace and leave it at that.  Given doctor-patient privilege, HIPPA, and legitimate rights of people with mental illnesses, it will be very hard to tighten the loopholes so small that people like that could not get through.  

 I think the focus of gun control efforts should not be on preventing the disturbed mass shooters who kill 10-40 people every couple years, but on the vast sea of criminals and idiots who kill 10,000 people every year, and the 20,000 who kill themselves.  Don't focus on the needle, shrink the whole haystack.

casiepierce
casiepierce

@mavdog What "database"? Flagged for what, exactly? Are you telling me that anyone who has ever visited a Phy. D should not be allowed to own a gun?

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@j.walter.miller One item often overlooked is that George III thought that the colonies were his personal chattels, after all he was the one who granted the exclusive rights to specified sections of the eastern seaboard of North America.

With the colonies as his personal chattels, George III believed that he did not have to deal with Parliament or any of the other niceties of English law developed up until then.


The construction of the 2nd Amendment has what is called an introductory dependent clause.  This is due to the comma after "state".  The dependent clause may be omitted entirely as it does not change the independent clause; or, may be moved to the end of the sentence.


The presence of the comma is what establishes the dependent clause.  The dependent clause is further established by the use of the gerund, "being".


The 2nd Amendment may be rewritten in a normal order of construction as follows:


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed {with} a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."


This was told to me by a former Supreme Court clerk, who said that among the Judges at the time, the consenus on the 2nd Amendment was: "Just how do you think that you keep the militia well regulated?"


The various restrictions on gun ownership, sales and use tend have more to do with time, manner and place conditions.   This is why the prohibition of a firearm in a school zone is not unconstitutional.  The thought is that if someone does commit a gun crime in a shool area, there is one more charge added.


That being said, nice write up.



RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Scruffygeist @RTGolden1 Sorry to spoil your fun Scruff!  I've been off UP for long enough, I guess my give-a-shit meter needs to be re-calibrated.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@RTGolden1 Thank you for the eloquent reply. And I knew there were examples, but I wanted Captain Asshat to give them, and of course he didn't--he went straight to the same circular rhetoric we've heard a thousand times over. Plus there's also a large different between the means used in your examples and the talk of some limitations to the vague language in our Constitution.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@j.walter.miller 

"I'm  glad you asked that question." "Time for a little history lesson."


Wow. You really know how to ingratiate yourself to folks, don't you, Wally?

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@observist @j.walter.miller The Supreme Court's decision McDonald v City of Chicago affirms that the 2nd Amendment rights cannot be infringed upon by state and local governments.  That decision will pave the way for lawsuits throwing out any local or state level gun control legislation including the City of Chicago's gun ban and any other scary looking gun ban at the state or local level government.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The District of Columbia v Heller affirms the 2nd Amendment right as an individual right unconnected  with any service in a militia.  

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

As you can see, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is clear.  It provides the means for ordinary citizens to maintain a free state by having the means to oppose the tyranny/oppression of their government.

Hunting, competition shooting, etc are really a very small part of the bigger picture.

So no, you cannot have my guns, whether you think they look scary or not, regardless of how many rounds those magazines hold.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Scruffygeist USSR, Congo, Darfur, etc etc.  If you want a list of genocides that were aided by 'gun control' try:

Guatemala 1966-1981 preceded by registration, high-fee licensing, carry prohibitions and confiscation powers. 100-200,000

Uganda 1971-1979 preceded by registration, licensing, warrantless searches, confiscation 300,000

Cambodia 1975-1979 licensing, registration, tracking of all gun and ammo transportation and transactions, 2,000,000

Rwanda 1994 registration of guns, owners and ammo, owners must justify 'need', ban of concealable weapons, confiscation powers.  800,000.

Just from a quick search.  I'm certain more could be found with a thorough search.  

If your need is even more modern than that, try the arab spring.  These regimes that were overthrown had some of the most draconian private gun ownership restrictions in the world.  How do you think they maintained control for all these years?

I agree, comparing what is currently happening to Hitler and the Nazi's is more fabulous than factual.  But pretending that there is no correlation between tyranny and disarming the citizen is every bit as erroneous.



j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@observist @j.walter.miller Except that the 2nd Amendment doesn't stay anything about state militias.  It is written the way it is for a reason.  Inconvenient, I know but very clear in it's intent.

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@observist @j.walter.miller None of that is unsubstantiated.  You are literally saying the American Revolution never happened.  Or saying that the English Bill of Rights considering firearms didn't use the language "as allowed by law", etc.  These facts are not up for debate.  I know they are incredibly inconvenient for you.  Tell you what.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Put a sign in your yard declaring your home a gun free zone and post your address here.  I'll post my address too.  We'll see who gets robbed or suffers a home invasion and who doesn't.  Deal?

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@j.walter.miller Did I mention disarming? No. I said modifications. Plus you apparently don't know the all-encompassing meaning of "universal" since you couldn't be bothered to use "simply" correctly. 

It's amusing how quickly you retreated to broad rhetoric, Chicken Little. Go ahead and give us even one modern example of bad things happening to a population that has been involuntarily disarmed. Britain, Australia, and Germany seem to be still functioning, to give you 3 relatively relevant counter-examples of countries with arms control.

You're bad at debate. Do yourself a favor and push the keyboard away, then take your blinders off and experience the real world as it really is.

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@Scruffygeist @j.walter.miller I don't have to have anything to counter with.  You simple don't understand that bad things universally happen to disarmed populations.  It's a timeless theme.  It never changes.  That never "goes away".  Either you get it or you don't.  In your case, the head in the sand approach is what you use.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@j.walter.miller Classy. A Nazi reference when you've got nothing to counter with is always the sign of a sophisticated intellect. I have a feeling very few people thank you for much anything.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@j.walter.miller Way to be passive-aggressive. My original point was very aware of history. Men, exclusively white men, wrote an amendment, purposely vague, mind you, about a right that was relevant to their era and only their era, because they did not have time machines nor Sports Almanacs from the future to inform them of technological and societal evolution. It was an era of horses, powdered wigs, slavery, indentured servitude, duels, thinking passing the Appalachians was ridiculous, candles, outhouses, and doubt the Earth was round or not the center of the universe. 

Now that we've established the history and state of the nation at that time, let's also not be so naive to assume that they weren't smart enough to be vague intentionally to allow modifications when their times did change. To think the Constitutional is 100% relevant to now in its original language  is akin to thinking the Bible is 100% relevant to now, which tells me that you're incapable of critical thought or the decision-making ability to make you worthy of a muzzle-loaded, iron-ball-firing musket, much less weaponry that would seem like magic to an 18th century white male. The Constitution was put in place as framework, and is by no means the end-all, be-all. Or would you like to tell women and people of color they shouldn't bother voting?

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@Scruffygeist Sorry about that. Another posted made the comment about second guessing.  I incorrectly attributed that comment to you.  The words tyranny are not defined in the Bill of Rights.  Those rights don't exist in a vacuum.  There is a reason all that language was chosen and why.  You can either choose to be aware of history or you can ignore it and pretend those words mean something different.  The adults around here are aware of history and exactly why citizens should be allowed to own the same weapons the police and such use.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@j.walter.miller One, I said nothing about second-guessing, that's your language, much less putting it in quotes. And two, where in 27 words is tyranny defined?

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

Scruffygeist I'm glad you've asked this question.  It's time for a little history lesson.

The amendment is not about sports. It is not about recreation. It is not about hunting. It is only partly about defending yourself from a criminal.

The second amendment is about ensuring a “free state.”

On April 19, 1775, British regulars marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the guns of American colonists that had been stockpiled in case of revolution.

It may be an abstract concept for us. It may be distant. But when the 1st Congress of the United States met in 1789, the memory of 1775 was fresh. More so, what they saw as an abridgment of their freedoms in 1775, they viewed as an abridgment of their freedoms going back to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Many historians have come to view the American Revolution as a conservative revolution. The revolutionaries believed they were protecting their English rights from the Glorious Revolution of 1688. They were, in effect, revolting to demand the rights they thought they already had as English citizens. It is why, for much of 1775, they petitioned the King, not Parliament, for help because they had, separated by distance and time, not kept up with the legal evolution of the British constitutional monarchy in relation to Parliament. The colonists believed themselves full English citizens and heirs of the Glorious Revolution.

One of the rights that came out of the Bill of Rights of 1689 in England following the Glorious Revolution was a right to bear arms for defense against the state. The English Bill of Rights accused King James II of disarming protestants in England. That Bill of Rights included the language “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”

The Americans, however, saw the British government, via Parliament, begin curtailing the rights of the citizenry in the American colonies. When they formed the federal government with ratification of the Constitution, the colonists, now Americans, were deeply skeptical of a concentrated federal power, let alone standing armies to exercise power on behalf of a government. This is why, originally, the colonists chose to require unanimity for all federal action under the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution would replace. Likewise, it is why many early state constitutions gave both an explicit right to keep and bear arms, but also instructed that standing armies in times of peace should not be maintained.

Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and that first Congress dropped references to “as allowed by Law” that had been in the English Bill of Rights. The Founders intended that Congress was to make no law curtailing the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment, contrary to much of today’s conversation, has just as much to do with the people protecting themselves from tyranny as it does burglars. That is why there is so little common ground about assault rifles — even charitably ignoring the fact that there really is no such thing. If the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry from even their own government, then the citizenry should be able to be armed.

 As you can see, the 2nd Amendment major, overriding purpose it to ensure that the citizens remain free from the tyranny or oppression of their own government.

 Weapons are what separate citizens and subjects.  The latter having no right to firearms.

 I'll leave you with this last quote from a Supreme Court decision of great significance.

ustice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943):

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

 I want to correct you when you say the amendments to our Constitution are "second guessing" it's intent.  They are anything but.


scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@j.walter.miller All of our rights have conditions and limitations.   The phrase you use is no where to be found. 

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

 What do the words "shall not be infringed upon" mean to you?

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...