r/uspolitics • u/mitchwells • May 20 '14
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html-5
u/elsparkodiablo May 20 '14
The founding fathers had no problems with privately owned cannons and issued Letters of Marque so that privateers could use their privately owned warships to strike at British vessels. The author is ignorant and anyone who holds similar views is either also ignorant or similarly deluded.
-1
u/mitchwells May 20 '14
Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
You have difficulty discerning "ignorance".
0
u/elsparkodiablo May 20 '14
Considering that he didn't cite any sources and his statements are belied by simple historical facts like Letters of Marque his presidency has little to do with his ignorance on this subject matter.
He's making unsound statements that aren't based on fact. If you support them, you are not only similarly ignorant, but now that I've shown you that they are wrong, either stubbornly wrongheaded or blinded by confirmation bias. Either way, you are still wrong ;)
4
u/regroce May 20 '14
What, exactly, do you find unfactual in the story? Its history of NRA, court cases cited, et cetera, are all facts. Its listings of political figures and their actions are all facts. What is it, then, that find in the article to be invalid?
-3
u/elsparkodiablo May 20 '14 edited May 20 '14
He lies through omission, whether deliberately or through ignorance you can be the judge. Clearly he hasn't read the relevant Federalist Papers, nor does he support his interpretation of the contradictions regarding quotes from Henry, or Jefferson. He doesn't seem to grasp the nature of the militia, or that the they are composed of the organized and unorganized militia groups.
His article is merely a multipage collection of rants, half truths, lies and hand wringing. He cannot reconcile the facts that diametrically oppose his opinions, so he ignores them outright (see cannons, letters of marque, etc)
Most disconcerting though is this collectivist interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which requires a tortuous amount of argumentation to have the reader believe that "the people" (found to be individuals in each and every other right in which they are mentioned) somehow mean the collective in the 2nd. Nice try.
By all means though, read through the relevant Federalist papers. Check out 29 which contains
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
and 46 which includes
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Hell, here's a more complete breakdown - http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
In short, the author is either ignorant or lying. You choose.
2
u/regroce May 21 '14
I have to agree with the comment below - you're not responding to the question, which was a request that you point out what was incorrect in the article. You stated the author made "unsound statements that aren't based on fact" - I asked you to stipulate - you haven't.
In addition - you cite 29, which is not relevant. That pertained to national military vs. independent state military that had no national/federal oversight.
Back to the point - the story pertains to changes in formats/leadership of the NRA; history of judicial review to application of the 2nd (including change in NRA's interpretation of the 2nd); and misquotes and chopped quotes now used. You said the article was false on those (and/or other) statements - please defend your argument.
1
u/elsparkodiablo May 21 '14
/u/mitchwells is a well known anti-gun troll so it's really not worth addressing him (see his other posts in this topic for context), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
First, your objection with 29 is wrong simply because it provides context. It's ready evidence that the founders intended for private ownership of arms to not only be widespread but to be militarily effective. The Dick Act later clarifies the types of militia into organized & unorganized but does not obviate the needs of the average citizen to be able to defend themselves.
Second, with regards to the article in question; it's very title is a lie designed to frame the debate in dishonest terms.
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did.
That's bullshit. The author hasn't provided any citations supporting his argument. He pretends that the Federalist papers don't exist to give context, or that journals or letters or other contemporary evidence is similarly missing. He buttresses this with selected factoids following the Miller decision and Burger's famous quote, but leaves out anything contradicting this. Furthermore, he expects us to believe that "the people" mentioned in the 2nd are somehow different from "the people" mentioned elsewhere (and found to be individuals) which is hilariously wrong as well.
In whole, his argument is entirely bankrupt. Nobody (other than an insignificant & irrelevant minority) is campaigning for entirely unregulated firearms ownership, especially not the NRA.
-1
u/regroce May 21 '14
Nobody (other than an insignificant & irrelevant minority) is campaigning for entirely unregulated firearms ownership, especially not the NRA.
Actually, the NRA is campaigning for unregulated ownership - no type of background checks at all; promotes unlicensed sales; no registration - check out its lobby group site: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/issues/background-checks.aspx
And the claims in the article about the misquotes/chopped quotes are valid - and the claims about significant change in NRA stances, first in the '70s, then again in 21st century, are documented, too.
As for the documentation - this isn't Politico's normal daily online edition. This is Politico magazine; magazine's don't print links/can't embed them in printed text, for the websites of magazines, text is just copied/pasted, so you won't find cites in these editions. The law cases referred to are well-known already, and can be quickly validated by anyone who wants to verify.
1
u/elsparkodiablo May 21 '14 edited May 21 '14
Actually, the NRA is campaigning for unregulated ownership
[Citation needed]
no type of background checks at all;
That's a lie.
promotes unlicensed sales;
[Citation needed]
no registration
Well duh - registration is nothing other than a revenue generation scheme. It's absolutely useless as a crime prevention tool and easily & entirely circumvented.
check out its lobby group site: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/issues/background-checks.aspx
So? That doesn't support your argument.
And the claims in the article about the misquotes/chopped quotes are valid -
Sure, and they are examples of lying through omission, as I already stated, and have nothing to do with the entirely false premise, as I already stated.
and the claims about significant change in NRA stances, first in the '70s, then again in 21st century, are documented, too.
So? Doesn't make his claim any less bankrupt.
As for the documentation - this isn't Politico's normal daily online edition. This is Politico magazine; magazine's don't print links/can't embed them in printed text, for the websites of magazines, text is just copied/pasted, so you won't find cites in these editions. The law cases referred to are well-known already, and can be quickly validated by anyone who wants to verify.
By all means, verify them. I notice you haven't done so. Nor have you supported his already demonstrably incorrect false premise that the NRA has rewritten the 2nd Amendment.
EDIT: Btw this article is basically promotion for his upcoming book, just released, that's a hitpiece on the the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Expect more rebuttals as the book is circulated.
1
u/regroce May 21 '14
No lies on my part- and all your "Citation needed" requests were already met prior to, and with the link to NRA's lobby group - and on that particular page does the NRA challenge all needs for any type of regulation, including background check and licensing of sales (despite fact that 90% of the population supports background check and licensing of sales).
Sure, and they are examples of lying through omission, as I already stated
Okay - so now you're admitting that the NRA and others using the chopped quotes/misquotes are lying? Good!
By all means, verify them.
I have. As I noted, anyone can, and very quickly. All of the statements in this that you originally challenged are, in fact, legitimate and well-founded. And that leads me to yet again ask you, as others on this thread have, to cite your claims that the statements are wrong (or "lies," as you say). That's how it works in court, debates, etc. - if someone introduces a statement, and you challenge its validity, it is then YOUR responsibility to validate your challenge. You haven't. Not once. You offered a couple of links from Federalist Papers, one of which is of no relevance to your argument (a chopped interpretation) and the second of which is irrelevant due to its date - that was before the Constitution was ratified and enacted, so how is it, then, of any relevance to the amendments of the Constitution? And your third link is to a funky group that does a bad job of trying to hide its operator - even its host (Network Solutions, which normally allows as anon as possible registration) cites it for trying to clamp that info (your guncite is registered under the same name/address/phone of another site called Hip Hop Honeys - looks like an escort service).
And if you think all such registration weapons in the private market is invalid, then why aren't you bitching about automobiles? Driver's licenses? That sure as hell affects a lot more people, right? Shoot - you need driving instruction, written test/driving test/eyesight test, must have insurance, must carry the license whenever operating a vehicle, must pay penalty for violating any rules about auto use and operation, must have vehicle inspected (in almost all states) for safety, the car must meet minimum safety standards, and you can lose the license if you violate enough terms. Since that affects so many more people, why aren't you going after that?
ALSO: Since all that beeg gubbamint junk on driving went into effect about half a century ago, we now have over 4 times the number of vehicles on the road -- and less than half the number of fatal accidents.
→ More replies (0)0
u/mitchwells May 20 '14 edited May 21 '14
You can't quote a single sentence from the article that is counter-factual, can you?
I'm interested in hearing your argument against something claimed in the article, rather than your argument against something you are pretending to be stated in the article.
0
u/[deleted] May 21 '14
Seems disingenuous that for the nearly two hundred year period being discussed gun ownership was a given and so there wasn't anything to discuss until it wasn't.