Know your gun rights history

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The U.S. Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” By that definition – by any definition really – the brutal killings at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin was an act of terrorism. Washington should react to it as it would to any other act of terrorism, by asking what we could do to prevent further acts like it.

It is certainly worth focusing on the killer, his motives, and his background. But there are thousands of people like him – white supremacists, neo-Nazis, fanatics of various types. We should keep track of people who espouse hatred and violence, but let’s be honest, this isn’t a strategy likely to succeed in a free society of 300 million people. Many people spew hateful speech. The vast majority of them don’t go out and kill innocent men, women, and children. We’re not going to be very good at guessing who will and who won’t.

Besides, as I’ve said before, do we really have more fanatics, hate-filled Neo-Nazis than other countries? Probably not. Those kinds of villains exist everywhere. But we do have much higher rates of gun violence than any other rich country and that’s because we have many more guns. The United States has twenty times the number of gun homicides per capita as Britain and Australia, ten times as many as India, four times as many as Switzerland. We are in a league of our own when it comes to gun violence. No other country even comes close.

Any effort to do something about the widespread availability of guns runs up against the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says, “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.” But that amendment wasn’t seen as a barrier to gun control for almost a century and a half.

Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”

In 1934, a comprehensive law controlling guns was passed by Congress. It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security,” meaning the army. Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes, but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Supreme Court agreed, unanimously.

All this changed in starting in the 1970s and '80s as part of an organized movement led by special interests like the National Rifle Association. Reflecting on it, former Chief Justice Warren Burger – a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon – said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

So when someone tells you that the second amendment means people can carry weapons that can fire a hundred bullets a second, tell them they don’t know their American history.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/08/know-your-gun-rights-history/

[Harsh_77 716]

The article is by Fareed Zakaria on CNN what you expect?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The article is by Fareed Zakaria on CNN what you expect?

What's your counter argument? He stated facts. Challenge those facts, if you dare.

[^_^ 5,021]

This "history" doesn't even mention Keller. Seriously?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This "history" doesn't even mention Keller. Seriously?

Helen Keller?

[^_^ 5,021]

Helen Keller?

Heller?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

If you follow the case law after this, Miller is generally seen as defining the idea that weapons that are not current military weapons can be regulated. The law regulated short barrel shotguns. It looks like the military had used them in WW1 and the supreme court was unaware of this.

[Ban Hammer 13,134]

So when someone tells you that the second amendment means people can carry weapons that can fire a hundred bullets a second, tell them they don’t know their American history.

so tell us, which firearm is that?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

so tell us, which firearm is that?

A vulcan cannon can fire 6,000 rounds a minute, so thats 100 rounds a second.

[rocks 494]

A vulcan cannon can fire 6,000 rounds a minute, so thats 100 rounds a second.

I've heard that it was only supposed to be weapons you can hold in your hand.

[Ban Hammer 13,134]

A vulcan cannon can fire 6,000 rounds a minute, so thats 100 rounds a second.

strange i've not read any stories about anyone carrying one of those.

Specifications

Weight 248 pounds (112 kg) (excluding feed system) (M61A1) or

202 pounds (92 kg) (excluding feed system) (M61A2)

(HEI) 100 g (3.5 oz) (projectile)

Length 71.93 in (1,827 mm)

[rocks 494]

strange i've not read any stories about anyone carrying one of those.

Specifications

Weight 248 pounds (112 kg) (excluding feed system) (M61A1) or

202 pounds (92 kg) (excluding feed system) (M61A2)

(HEI) 100 g (3.5 oz) (projectile)

Length 71.93 in (1,827 mm)

If you can lift 248lbs, do you really need any weapons?

[Harsh_77 716]

What's your counter argument? He stated facts. Challenge those facts, if you dare.

Its Warren Burger's opinion. Its not the fact.

Fact is Dems including CNN has and always opposed NRA and right of ppl to Bear Arms.

They would publish anything and support anything that would take away this right, they believe everything should be controlled by Govt.

[rocks 494]

Its Warren Burger's opinion. Its not the fact.

Fact is Dems including CNN has and always opposed NRA and right of ppl to Bear Arms.

They would publish anything and support anything that would take away this right, they believe everything should be controlled by Govt.

Yes, because the NRA are such a great organization with morals. They need to be regulated by the government because they are crazy...

[Harsh_77 716]

='Commie Appeaser' timestamp='1344442630' post='5595024']

What's your counter argument? He stated facts. Challenge those facts, if you dare.

Fareed Zakaria would point to some case from 1934 but he would not publish from 2008 case (Thats my point)

Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Harsh_77