Thursday, January 24, 2013

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a SLAVEHOLDING State

Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, IN FULL: "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." Was the Second Amendment negotiated to allow the Southern Slaveholding States to continue policing of their large slave populations once the new federal government became responsible for the military? Read on and follow the link at the end of the article.

The Bloody NRA enablers typically leave out the first half of the sentence. It's inconvenient for their purposes, which is make money for their sponsors by selling lots of guns. But it is just ONE sentence, meaning it's just ONE thought, not two separable statements. When they do confront the entire sentence, the Bloody NRA would have us believe that the Second Amendment was created to allow us to overthrow a tyrannical government. However, it makes no sense that our founders would refer to a domestic insurrection to overthrow the government as a "well regulated militia". Well regulated by whom? On the contrary, it seems to refer to a militia capable of putting down such a rebellion or a foreign invasion and preserving our Constitutional government. And the type of Constitutional government that our founders devised for us provides for a peaceful means of changing the government. THAT is the whole point!

Furthermore, the Supreme Court while upholding the second amendment has affirmed the right of Americans to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their homes. Never have they affirmed the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of overthrowing the government. NEVER! While I'm not totally unsympathetic to the idea that a tyrannical government might need to be opposed if one ever arrose, there is no way that citizens will ever have the type of weapons that are, and will be in the future, available to the government. Nor should they! It's been illegal to own a machine gun since the 1930's because they present too great a threat to public safety. Is that an infringement? Yes. Is it Constitutional? Yes. Is it reasonable? You're damn right it is! How many mass muders have been commited by Gunmen equipped with fully automatic weaopns in the U.S. since the 1930's? Almost ZERO. Proof that reasonable gun control laws work, even with respect to criminals.

You can't resolve the language "Well Regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a Free State . . ." with the ability of the General Public to own any type of "Arms" ever to be devised by man. There's nothing Well Regulated about that! And remember, the Constitution doesn't say "firearms", is says "Arms", which can be interpreted to mean ANY Weapon, when of course the founders meant muskets capable of firing up to 3 rounds a minute in the hands of well trained militiamen. Hardly a major threat to public health and safety. As a Strict Constitutional Constructionalist and dogged adherent to original intent (NOT!), I insist on the right of all Americans to keep and bear all the muskets, lead balls, wadding and powder horns they can carry! RAMRODS ALL AROUND!

So was the Second Amendment designed for We the People to overthrow our own government? I don't see any evidence for that. It certainly isn't claerly stated as such. However, below is a link to an article that makes a compelling case that it's intent was to allow the Southern Slaveholding States to continue the policing of their slave populations once the right to raise armies passed from the states to the Federal Government and Congress under the new Constitution. And despite the Bloody NRA's Predictable Profit Inspired Protestations, that hardly represents a reasonable or moral underpinning for the alledged right of the General Public to own military style weapons of mass murder in Post Emanicipation Proclamation, Post Civil Rights, Modern America. 

Interchangeable magazine clips were designed for the military for maximum firepower on the battlefield. They have No Legitimate Civilian Use. Ban them NOW!

Thursday, January 03, 2013

And Again! Merry Christmas from the Bloody NRA

From Mr. Gunman's Christmas Eve Massacre Note: “I still have to get ready to see how much of the neighborhood I can burn down and do what I like doing best — killing people,” Well Mr. Gunman, enabled by the Bloody NRA, picked the right mass murder tool, the military style AR-15 Bushmaster assault weapon with an arsenal of high capacity, interchangeable magazine clips!

As Christmas Eve dawned in Webster, NY Mr. Gunman set a trap. When fire fighters responded to the fire he set, he shot four of them with his Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle, the same type of semiautomatic weapon used in the school mass murder shooting 10 days earlier in Newtown, Conn. He murdered two volunteer firemen and severely wounded two more before engaging in a shootout with police and then blowing his own brains out.

“He was equipped to go to war to kill innocent people,” the Webster police chief, Gerald L. Pickering, said of Mr. Gunman.

When will we outlaw weapons of mass murder like the AR-15 Bushmaster and the high capacity magazine used by the mass murderer du jour in Aurora, CO, Newton, CT, Webster, NY? Oh yeah, we already did it was called the Assault Weapons Ban, but the Republicons gleefully let it expire in 2004 as required by their puppet masters, the Bloody NRA, the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers that works feverishly to ensure their profits. It’s NOT REALLY about the 2ndAmendment, it’s about the money.

I'm not against people having guns, but high powered, highly concealable guns with high capacity, easily interchangeable magazine clips that allowed the Virginia Tech mass murderer to spray 170 rounds in 5 minutes are not weapons of sport or self-defense. The only thing they are good for is mass murder. No one needs one and no one should have one, let alone Four, three, one!

For crying out loud, give us a chance, at least make'em have to stop and RELOAD!

Which brings up a good point, actually. It’s not the guns so much as the magazines that are the problem. I'm convinced that interchangeable magazines should be illegal to manufacture or sell in the U.S. They were designed for the military specifically so that soldiers can reload quickly, which is what makes them so dangerous to public health and safety in the hands of civilians.

There is no non-military use for these items. Simply limiting the capacity of these clips to 10 rounds as was the case under the old assault weapons ban and as is proposed by Sen. Feinstein will not do much good because a killer can still reload in seconds.

Only guns that have internal magazines that require reloading rounds one at a time, like revolvers should be legal. And those magazines should be limited to 10 rounds max. Those types of guns are perfectly suitable for self-defense and hunting. Nothing more is needed and anything more is a much too substantial threat to public safety.

I honestly believe that if these mass murderers knew they could only kill a few people on their way out, it just wouldn't provide the "glory" they're looking for. They might just not bother with it if we take all the fun out of it for them. Anyway making them less deadly and protecting public safety while preserving our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, reasonably would be a very good thing.
Machine guns have been illegal since the 1930's and these mass murderers aren't using machine guns. Not because they wouldn't want the ability to kill even more people during their rampage, but because they are not easily available like the next best thing for Gunmen, military style, semi-automatic assault weapons with high capacity interchangeable magazines. It's time to make them illegal too!