Tank McNamara by Bill Hinds for March 10, 2013

What part of “Congress shall not abridge” don’t you understand?

@Randayn, if you’re going to quote, get it right. “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.” “We’ll-regulated” is currently understood to be ‘blah-blah’ by the Supremes and gun lovers, but those words may yet better understood in the fullness of time.

A “well-regulated militia” in the 18th century referred to a general population of men aged 16-60 or so who could shoot well, would show up and fight when ordered, understood military drill and could be relied upon to possess the standard military weapons of the time at their own expense. By that standard, a “well-regulated militia” in our day would refer to a system in which men and women of military age commonly have full auto assault rifles, i.e. machine guns, in their homes. I appreciate @Dangerbunny’s evident full support for such policies.

Perhaps ya’ll should be checking out the country just south of us that runs along our border. Seems that being without guns to protect themselves the average folks there just are victims to be preyed upon by drug cartels or corrupt government officials. Pretty brutal life. That’s in part why so many of those folks are here trying to escape that existence.But I know that there are lots folks believe that could never happen here. Without the 2nd amendment, the rest are meaningless.

Nothing about motor vehicles in the Constitution, either; more people are killed in vehicles accidents.

Some people can’t help but vent their politics in every venue that gives them an opportunity.

“Wow, your relentless and vehement political posts have completely changed my mind and my vote”, said no one ever.

Then WHY does the NRA keep bringing up hunting in defense of the second amendment? And those demigods/demagogues you complain of started out as average citizens, then got rich moving their way up the political food chain! Agree with Bill Hinds. This is a marketing commentary, always searching for the next best thing

And militias were expected to own their own guns, provide their own ammo, and meet regularly for drill. Unless you’re a member of the National Guard, show me a “militia” that meets in in public on the square so they can show the citizens their qualifications/expertise.

Some people just live to be offended.

Bill, I could have told you you’d be getting a lot of comments on this one. Wander over to Yahoo! and start reading the stuff that gets posted in response to any news article remotely referencing guns, let alone gun control. Sayman, above, nailed it.

Good luck, guy.

@Tucci: The gun industry calls them “assault” weapons. It was the marketing speak that they came up with to sell them. It is baffling to see you complaining against people using the term that the manufacturer of the guns in question used to market them.

@Rugeirn Drienborough: You seem to have forgotten about half of what you said. That part about being good shots, showing up to fight (in defense of the state), and knowing military drill. Is any of that commonplace?

Oh, that’s right…In the National Guard (which is the official militia of the US). Your right to own a gun is not predicated upon a right to self-defense or hunting or sport shooting or anything else. It is based upon the fact that the Army is not to be used within the borders of the US. States are charged with defending themselves and their defense is managed through the militia. It’s why when there’s a natural disaster, the states call up the National Guard for security rather than anybody with a gun.

Now, that doesn’t mean you don’t have a right to self-defense or hunt or sport with the gun you are allowed to have via the Second Amendment. However, those are not the reasons you are allowed to have a gun.

@Tucci: Just go through your old issues of Guns and Ammo. You’ll find them. Try 1984 when they sold a book, “Assault Firearms,” that was “full of the hottest hardware available today.”That you don’t know this shows you haven’t done your homework but are parroting what someone told you. For example, “investigation will almost certainly demonstrate that this stupidity came only after the ‘Liberal’ fascists had begun their victim disarmament noise two decades ago.” Nope…it was a term that was popularized 30 years ago by the gun industry to sell their own product. The first time it was used was during WWII to refer to the Sturmgewehr. The gun industry was looking for a way to popularize similar guns and decided to use it for their own purposes.But why let facts get in the way of a good rant?And you seem to have stopped reading my post. In it, you would have found that I agree that you have a right to a gun, but not for the reasons people claim you do. It is not so you can defend yourself. It is not so you can hunt. It is not so you can go to a range and have some fun. It’s so that when your state calls you up to defend it, since the Army does not have jurisdiction inside the US, you can have a weapon. Now, it so happens that self-defense and hunting and sport shooting are also acceptable uses for the gun that you are allowed to have, but they are not the reason that you are allowed to have one.So, since the defense of the state is the reason you are allowed to have a gun, what makes you think the state doesn’t have the ability to regulate what arms you are allowed to have? After all, the text directly states, “well-regulated militia.” It would seem that you think the Second Amendment starts just the way the NRA thinks it does: With an ellipsis.But, you’ve already shown that you haven’t actually done any research on the topic but are simply parroting words whispered to you by somebody else.

And the birthers strike again! Never any mention of our coward-in-chief, W, and his missing time in the Texas ANG. Oh, right, that was just a Dan Rather fantasy!

@Tucci: You really don’t know the history of the country, do you? We tried the weak federal system under the Articles of Confederation. The country nearly collapsed. That’s why the Constitution was written in the first place: To strengthen the country. We could not exist as a loose collective of independent states. We needed to become an actual country.If the Second Amendment didn’t exist, where would you claim your right to own a gun? You seem to think the contract only goes one way.The Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence are nice, but they are not the law of the land. The Constitution is the law of the land and that is why you continue to fail.And I see you’re going to pretend that the bone of contention is the word “weapon” rather than the word “assault.” You really can’t think for yourself, can you? Is there any thought in your head that wasn’t put there by somebody else? Hint: “Sturmgewehr” doesn’t translate as “assault rifle,” either. It translates as “storm rifle.”Question, should you be allowed to have a nuclear device? If not, how does the regulation of one type of “arms” not imply that other types of “arms” can also be regulated?

@Tucci: I see you’re still pretending that the Second Amendment starts with an ellipsis. That is the basis of your entire failure. Since the Second Amendment expressly points out that the militia is to be regulated, it is obvious to all but the most casual observer that the government has the ability to establish those regulations.There is no denigration of the Delcaration of Independence. It simply acknowledges that it is not a document that establishes any law. How could it when it is nothing but a statement of intent to secede from the British Crown? My assertion that the British Common Law has no bearing on US law (despite our system of jurisprudence being based upon British Common Law) doesn’t denigrate it. After all, the UK runs on it. But it isn’t a justification for anything since it has no legal effect here in the US. And neither does the DoI.And that you think the Constitution isn’t a contract shows you don’t understand the meaning of the word. I bet you’re about to claim something about “not initiating force,” aren’t you?The Federalist Papers, like the Delcaration of Independence, are nice, but they aren’t law. The Constitution is the law of the land. How interesting that you want to look everywhere except the one place that the law goes to in order to justify your claim. And you even fail at that, claiming that the Federalists insisted that we didn’t need a Bill of Rights when it is so clear that we did. After all, we have one. We use it. Your precious Second Amendment is part of it.I notice you didn’t answer the question: Do you think you, as part of your Second Amendment rights, have the right to nuclear arms? It’s a very simple question. After all, the reason you have a right to a gun is because the state was empowered to call upon you to defend it when the militia was required. So why wouldn’t the state want as much effective weaponry as it could muster? Especially if it didn’t have to pay for it but could rely upon the militia to provide it?So yes or no: Does the Second Amendment give you the right to nuclear arms?I am pretty sure you didn’t answer because you know that if you agree that it doesn’t, then your entire argument falls. We would no longer be arguing over whether or not the government has the right to regulate your access to arms but simply over where to draw the line.Now, try to think for yourself rather than parrot somebody else. Does the Second Amendment give you the right to nuclear arms?

The factual reality is that until the most recent SCOTUS case, the Second Amendment was never held to be an individual right but rather one held by the collective in the context of a well-regulated militia. The simple history of it is that whites wanted to be able to keep down slave insurrection. That’s why you have a right to a gun. It has nothing to do with overthrow of the government. The Second Amendment is all about supporting the government.And again, you seem to think that the DoI is a legal document. It has some lovely sentiments in it, but it has no legal bearing on anything. It is a geometry proof (it was written during the Neo-Classical period, after all) explaining the various actions King George III had taken that justified the colonies seceding from the British Crown. That you don’t know this is the source of your failure.But, at least, you finally answered my question: You do think you have the right to nuclear arms. So why is it you aren’t suing the government over it? Do you honestly think you’ll get anywhere?Hint: Who said anything about “gun-grabbing”? You will note that there hasn’t been a single bill submitted to take away anybody’s guns and I certainly haven’t said anything that could be interpreted as such. Now if only you understood the Greek you parroted.καλή τύχη

@Tucci: I didn’t realize I was supposed to submit the entire SCOTUS judicial record. I would have thought after your last smackdown for not doing your homework (that the term “assault” was used by gun manufacturers to advertise their own product and was not a “liberal” consipracy) that you would have taken the hint. It would appear you have not learned your lesson.Hie thee to FindLaw and spend some time reading the decisions. The Second Amendment has always been considered a collective right, not an individual one. It has always been understood that the reason for it is that the state will have need of a militia. You are also allowed to do other things with your gun, but the reason you have a right to a gun is because of the state’s interest in security that is provided by a well-regulated militia. But then again, you seem to agree with the NRA that the Second Amendment starts with an ellipsis.You even agree with my point: Whites are scared of blacks and will do whatever they can to ensure that they maintain power over them. Back in the 60s when the Black Power movement was rising, white legislatures were doing all they could with regard to gun laws to make sure that blacks did not have access to guns.And to pretend that the Fourteenth Amendment was about gun rights is to show you know nothing of history.As for nuclear arms, do you even know anything about the physics and engineering required to make such a device? It’s not something you can cook up in your basement with some easily-acquired stuff you got from the local chemist, like gunpowder. It requires nuclear material, a heavily-regulated industry. Why do you think we’re in such a bother regarding Iran’s nuclear program? The process by which you enrich uranium such that you can use it for a reactor can be ramped up such that it becomes enriched enough to make a bomb. That is not a simple process.But you’ve said the Second Amendment protects your right to have such a device. The point is that if we agree that no, the Second Amendment doesn’t allow you to have any weapon of any kind, then your complaints about “assault” <insert apoplexy-inducing term here> are baseless. You are going on as if you are arguing about the existence of the line when actually we’re arguing about where it ought to be drawn.So are you backpedaling? Are you saying the Second Amendment doesn’t allow you to have a nuclear weapon?And since you bring it up, do you think the Second Amendment allows for you to have access to biological or chemical weapons? They’re just as highly regulated as nukes, after all. It’s not like there are stores selling weaponized anthrax or companies giving away vials of ebola for every new customer that signs up. And it isn’t like you can cook this stuff up on your own with any simplicity.Is there any argument you have that wasn’t told to you by someone else?