How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

[jet57]

Part 1

So, I’m raising a subject that I believe is a very serious point about our second amendment and what has become of it. To say the very least, it has been transformed into an emotionally driven political football that has also stood in as a patriotic litmus test; something that was just not conceived of when and after it was passed in the Bill of Rights.

How the NRA Rewrote The Second Amendment is an idea that has merit and quite a few supporting articles written about it. I have chosen one for the OP example, as it is the most concisely written and easily understood ones to use in the context of a discussion forum.

I present highlights from the story and my commentary in two pages which illustrates the point.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

I’ve noticed that most of the supporting rhetoric of the NRA version on the issue has been drawn directly from the language of the Heller decision.

The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.

The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

What we learn from the above paragraph is that a strong central government was placed into our system by design, so that the people of the country could hold sway over any state that deviated too far; hence our Civil War and emancipation, not to mention the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

“Bearing Arms” has always been a phrase of offensive action with military connotations, so the NRA version of the second amendment doesn’t hold water in that respect.

 

[jet57]

Part 2

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

So we can see through historical primary source documentation that the Second Amendment was designed to be quite different from the modern NRA led interpretation that now uses buzz phrases taken directly from the Heller decision to drive an agenda of more guns and own anything you want and carrying it loaded anywhere you want.

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

A very important note there; up until the NRA’s involvement with its new design of the second amendment, the Supreme Court, throughout our history, when they were much closer to the actual passage of the amendment were not inclined to hear what could be interpreted as a modern perspective, or rewriting of the meaning of the Amendment. Only through political wrangling and hoards of money being poured into its “revision”, do we find the new NRA agenda coming to fruition through law.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

And so right there we learn that the Supreme Court ruled - just 49 years after the passage of the Bill of Rights, that actually “bearing arms” in the context of the second amendment meant something entirely different!
It was associated with Military (militia) service.

The group [NRA] testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers.

What a change the NRA has made forma service oriented informational group, into a far right-wing, gun sales agenda driven political action lobbying firm. It staggers the mind.

As I said at the opening, there are many different sources for this same topic of how the NRA has rewritten the Second Amendment, so readers can find like sources all over the web. It is the historical accuracy of the original intent that contradicts the NRA revision “revision” which I find to be the most compelling, and it shows that the original intent of the Second Amendment was actually the antithesis of today’s NRA driven interpretation.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Part 2


So we can see through historical primary source documentation that the Second Amendment was designed to be quite different from the modern NRA led interpretation that now uses buzz phrases taken directly from the Heller decision to drive an agenda of more guns and own anything you want and carrying it loaded anywhere you want.


A very important note there; up until the NRA’s involvement with its new design of the second amendment, the Supreme Court, throughout our history, when they were much closer to the actual passage of the amendment were not inclined to hear what could be interpreted as a modern perspective, or rewriting of the meaning of the Amendment. Only through political wrangling and hoards of money being poured into its “revision”, do we find the new NRA agenda coming to fruition through law.


And so right there we learn that the Supreme Court ruled - just 49 years after the passage of the Bill of Rights, that actually “bearing arms” in the context of the second amendment meant something entirely different!
It was associated with Military (militia) service.


What a change the NRA has made forma service oriented informational group, into a far right-wing, gun sales agenda driven political action lobbying firm. It staggers the mind.

As I said at the opening, there are many different sources for this same topic of how the NRA has rewritten the Second Amendment, so readers can find like sources all over the web. It is the historical accuracy of the original intent that contradicts the NRA revision “revision” which I find to be the most compelling, and it shows that the original intent of the Second Amendment was actually the antithesis of today’s NRA driven interpretation.

Back for another ass beating on the 2nd amendment?

 

[RedAkston]

tl;dr

The 2nd amendment was passed in 1791 and has not been altered since that time. Thread fail - big time.

/thread

 

[jet57]

tl;dr

The 2nd amendment was passed in 1791 and has not been altered since that time. Thread fail - big time.

/thread

Uh, no thread fail in the least. The NRA is attempting to alter the meaning and purpose of the second amendment and source material validates that. So the NRA has indeed rewritten the amendment to suit its own purposes. And by not reading the OP OR the article, it hardly puts your opinion into a credible category of analysis or commentary.

 

[Rucker61]

Uh, no thread fail in the least. The NRA is attempting to alter the meaning and purpose of the second amendment and source material validates that. So the NRA has indeed rewritten the amendment to suit its own purposes.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/294694-militia-only-interpretation-2nd-amendment.html

 

[ttwtt78640]

What I find to be ridiculous, as well as hypocritical, is that the militia clause is used to define (narrow or limit?) the type of people intended to be protected from (federal?) government control yet the opposite stance is taken by those attempting to define (narrow or limit?) the type of arms to be protected from (federal?) government control. Many try to use the illogic that "military style" and "military function" arms, aka "assault weapons", are not protected by the 2A while, at the same time, saying that protecting arms possession for use by a (potential?) militia member is the only "true intent" of the 2A.

 

[jet57]

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/294694-militia-only-interpretation-2nd-amendment.html

Sorry, but that thread does not represent the issue I have raised in the OP.

 

[Fledermaus]

Uh, no thread fail in the least. The NRA is attempting to alter the meaning and purpose of the second amendment and source material validates that. So the NRA has indeed rewritten the amendment to suit its own purposes. And by not reading the OP OR the article, it hardly puts your opinion into a credible category of analysis or commentary.

WHEN was the second amendment passed?

1791

Total number of times it has been rewritten?

Zero.

It has been 'altered' the same way computers and radio 'altered' the first amendment...... Practically none.

 

[jet57]

What I find to be ridiculous, as well as hypocritical, is that the militia clause is used to define (narrow or limit?) the type of people intended to be protected from (federal?) government control yet the opposite stance is taken by those attempting to define (narrow or limit?) the type of arms to be protected from (federal?) government control. Many try to use the illogic that "military style" and "military function" arms, aka "assault weapons", are not protected by the 2A while, at the same time, saying that protecting arms possession for use by a (potential?) militia member is the only "true intent" of the 2A.

Well primary source documentation and historical Supreme Court decisions do validate the narrowness of the interpretation. As I stated in the OP, as does the accompanying article, it wasn't until the Heller Decision that the interpretation took on a modern NRA sponsored and lobbied for perspective.

 

[jet57]

WHEN was the second amendment passed?

1791

Total number of times it has been rewritten?

Zero.

It has been 'altered' the same way computers and radio 'altered' the first amendment...... Practically none.

Yeah, you're going to have to reread the OP and the article in order to get it. The article is full of factual information that validates the title of the both the article AND thread.

 

[RedAkston]

Uh, no thread fail in the least. The NRA is attempting to alter the meaning and purpose of the second amendment and source material validates that. So the NRA has indeed rewritten the amendment to suit its own purposes. And by not reading the OP OR the article, it hardly puts your opinion into a credible category of analysis or commentary.

Is the title of this thread "How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment" or not? Is the title of the article you linked to "How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment" or not?

The 2nd amendment has not been re-written by anyone and your thread is a failure of epic proportions. You don't have to like that, but it is what it is.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yeah, you're going to have to reread the OP and the article in order to get it. The article is full of factual information that validates the title of the both the article AND thread.

Opinion noted.

When was the 2nd REWRITTEN ?

Never.

 

[Fledermaus]

Well primary source documentation and historical Supreme Court decisions do validate the narrowness of the interpretation. As I stated in the OP, as does the accompanying article, it wasn't until the Heller Decision that the interpretation took on a modern NRA sponsored and lobbied for perspective.

So, it hadn't needed to be clarified until Heller.

And?

 

[jet57]

Is the title of this thread "How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment" or not? Is the title of the article you linked to "How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment" or not?

The 2nd amendment has not been re-written by anyone and your thread is a failure of epic proportions. You don't have to like that, but it is what it is.

Yeah,; again, you have to read the source article and the accompanying facts that explain the title. Trying to divert into sophomoric hair splitting is only a sign of no competent counter argument to what;s been presented.

 

[Rucker61]

Well primary source documentation and historical Supreme Court decisions do validate the narrowness of the interpretation. As I stated in the OP, as does the accompanying article, it wasn't until the Heller Decision that the interpretation took on a modern NRA sponsored and lobbied for perspective.

Explain the decision in Cruikshank and why there was never a law limiting firearms ownership by individuals by the federal government for the first 140 years of our country?

 

[Fledermaus]

Yeah,; again, you have to read the source article and the accompanying facts that explain the title. Trying to divert into sophomoric hair splitting is only a sign of no competent counter argument to what;s been presented.

What was rewritten?

 

[jet57]

So, it hadn't needed to be clarified until Heller.

And?

Clarified; or reinterpreted to fit and agenda based argument?

It would seem to me that an 1840 Supreme Court was muuuuch closer to the original intent AND possibly some of it's writers that the NRA of today. And the 1840 Supreme Court didn't see it the NRA way.

 

[Rucker61]

Uh, no thread fail in the least. The NRA is attempting to alter the meaning and purpose of the second amendment and source material validates that. So the NRA has indeed rewritten the amendment to suit its own purposes. And by not reading the OP OR the article, it hardly puts your opinion into a credible category of analysis or commentary.

If the collective view of the 2nd Amendment is the correct one, then NFA 1934 violates the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Yeah,; again, you have to read the source article and the accompanying facts that explain the title. Trying to divert into sophomoric hair splitting is only a sign of no competent counter argument to what;s been presented.

Maybe....just maybe, your thread would have caught traction by a honest title?

You kinda chewed off your own balls here pards.

 

[RedAkston]

Yeah,; again, you have to read the source article and the accompanying facts that explain the title. Trying to divert into sophomoric hair splitting is only a sign of no competent counter argument to what;s been presented.

Your "argument" is based on a lie, that's a freshman mistake. When what is "presented" is based on a lie, there really is no need to split hairs on my part. You on the other hand are the one slitting hairs because you're wanting everyone to ignore that your "argument" is in fact based on a lie.

PS Your thread is still an epic failure.

 

[Lutherf]

Part 1

So, I’m raising a subject that I believe is a very serious point about our second amendment and what has become of it. To say the very least, it has been transformed into an emotionally driven political football that has also stood in as a patriotic litmus test; something that was just not conceived of when and after it was passed in the Bill of Rights.

How the NRA Rewrote The Second Amendment is an idea that has merit and quite a few supporting articles written about it. I have chosen one for the OP example, as it is the most concisely written and easily understood ones to use in the context of a discussion forum.

I present highlights from the story and my commentary in two pages which illustrates the point.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine


I’ve noticed that most of the supporting rhetoric of the NRA version on the issue has been drawn directly from the language of the Heller decision.




What we learn from the above paragraph is that a strong central government was placed into our system by design, so that the people of the country could hold sway over any state that deviated too far; hence our Civil War and emancipation, not to mention the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.


“Bearing Arms” has always been a phrase of offensive action with military connotations, so the NRA version of the second amendment doesn’t hold water in that respect.

So the author's premise is that the Bill of Rights should hold no sway because it wasn't part of the Constitution? That's false on its face as the ratification of the Constitution included the BOR.

The author (and many of our anti gun "scholars") have so much trouble with this concept is because they believe, incorrectly, that the Constitution grants certain rights rather than prevents the government from infringing on those rights.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well primary source documentation and historical Supreme Court decisions do validate the narrowness of the interpretation. As I stated in the OP, as does the accompanying article, it wasn't until the Heller Decision that the interpretation took on a modern NRA sponsored and lobbied for perspective.

The fact that the SCOTUS changes its mind over time is by no means limited to the 2A. To say that guns used for hunting or self-defense are somehow not intended to be covered defies logic since originally there were few (if any) specialized guns that were designed specifically and exclusively for militia use. You are using interpretations to judge other interpretations and (arbitrarily?) assigning them weight.

There is absolutely no mention in the 16A of "based on how, or upon who, that income was later spent" or of "multiple income bracket rates" yet the power to "tax income from all sources" spawned laws that address those implied (derived?) powers much more so than than simply taxing all income equally. Modern use (interpretation?) of the 16A permits not only negative rates of taxation but to use the tax code to punish folks for not spending their income as directed. So, before you treat the 2A as "super special", or limited to "original intent", be sure to apply that legal exactness of your "primary source documentation" to the entire constitution.

 

[Goshin]

Part 2


So we can see through historical primary source documentation that the Second Amendment was designed to be quite different from the modern NRA led interpretation that now uses buzz phrases taken directly from the Heller decision ......
formational group, into a far right-wing, gun sales agenda driven political action lobbying firm. It staggers the mind.

As I said at the opening, there are many different sources for this same topic of how the NRA has rewritten the Second Amendment, so readers can find like sources all over the web. It is the historical accuracy of the original intent that contradicts the NRA revision “revision” which I find to be the most compelling, and it shows that the original intent of the Second Amendment was actually the antithesis of today’s NRA driven interpretation.

Not entirely wrong, but not entirely right either. Bear arms is arguably associated with militia service yes, but not always what we'd call military action in modern times.


But in any case the founders were pretty clear in their intent that the rights of the citizenry to possess and lawfully use arms was to be protected.

A few quotes....

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot




In any case, even if there were no 2A, the RKBA of free persons is ancient... the only problem was for most of history few people were "Free".

 

[ttwtt78640]

So the author's premise is that the Bill of Rights should hold no sway because it wasn't part of the Constitution? That's false on its face as the ratification of the Constitution included the BOR.

The author (and many of our anti gun "scholars") have so much trouble with this concept is because they believe, incorrectly, that the Constitution grants certain rights rather than prevents the government from infringing on those rights.

In a nutshell the original constitution (including the BoR) granted the federal government specific (enumerated?) powers and prevented those powers from abridging or denying rights of the several states or the people. Things got messy after folks started to "interpret" all sorts of other stuff in (or out) that should have been addressed via the amendment process established for that very purpose.