pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Daily Intelligencer, media on the attack: DISGUSTING
#1
I urge any subscribers to cancel this toilet paper. But first please write a rebuttal to this.

It is one of the most disgusting pieces I have EVER read.

Just wait til you read that the 2A was about controlling slaves.

Written by a "Staffwriter", not even the balls to take credit

http://vw.vrvm.com/intelligencer/db_2827...d=rITfdmiq

Following the horrific shootings of 20 innocent young children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., everyone seems to have weighed in on the causes of the tragedy.

Some insist it was the lack of appropriate mental health care for the deranged 20-year-old shooter. Others insist it was his easy access to a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic military-style assault rifle and an inordinate amount of ammunition.

Today, as is the case following basically all mass shootings, there is a flurry of activity by an outraged citizenry who insist there should be more access to diagnoses and treatment of those with mental-health issues and much-stricter limitations on the availability of firearms.

The latter problem was partially corrected on Tuesday when the Walmart chain removed guns similar to the Bushmaster from its website. That same day, Dick’s Sporting Goods temporarily suspended sales of a category of modern sporting rifles at more than 500 of its stores in 44 states.

Yet gun sales across the country are soaring. Unfortunately, it’s estimated there are more than 300 million guns, including approximately one million Bushmaster assault rifles, in circulation in the U.S.

As expected, there is a sizable fringe group that wants absolutely no restrictions placed on guns, while insisting guns are not the problem.

Many of them insist more guns are the real solution in stopping the massacres, and go to the extreme of advocating that all school teachers should carry guns as protection for themselves and their students.

These individuals bandy about inane slogans like “Guns don’t kill people — people kill people” or “The Second Amendment is about the power of the people to protect themselves from a government that has become oppressive.”

Another slogan constantly repeated by gun lovers is “Cars kill more people than guns and we don’t ban them.”

That was thrown at me about 14 years ago by film actor Charlton Heston when he had just been elected president of the National Rifle Association and I was interviewing him for a column.

“Yes, but we regulate cars and their drivers,” I responded. “Why can’t we do that with guns and gun owners?”

Heston’s only response after a long moment of thought was: “That does not compute.”

Nearly all the gun owners I’ve listened to cite their “rights” under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which they seem to consider sacred) to own and/or carry weapons.

Realistically, there is nothing sacred in the Second Amendment, and its author, James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution,” certainly never intended it to be.

Contrary to what most gun advocates and the many officials of the NRA insist, the Second Amendment was not about granting individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes, or for hunting, self-defense, national defense or resistance to governmental tyranny.

The Second Amendment was primarily about controlling slaves.

Its words are simple and to the point: “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.”

Under extreme political pressure, Madison wanted to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine their slave system by disarming their militias, which were then their principal instruments used to control slaves.

The amendment was ratified in late-1791, four years after the Constitution was ratified and the same year the earthshaking slave revolt and revolution occurred in Haiti.

That was no coincidence.

The NRA and other gun advocates are usually willing to cite the second part of the amendment, while minimizing or ignoring the first part, which emphasizes the militia.

For more than 200 years, the Second Amendment was generally interpreted by legal scholars as applying strictly to militias. Then in 2008, led by five Conservative justices, the U.S. Supreme Court somehow decided in a controversial 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment extended the gun-ownership rights to individuals.

That one-vote decision may someday be looked back on as a tragic ruling.

In 2010, 31,000 Americans were killed by guns. That’s more than 500 times the number of American military personnel killed in Iraq that year.

Fearing reprisals from what they consider a powerful NRA, House and Senate members have long-been reluctant to take serious steps that might stop some of the carnage by bringing about even modest gun regulations.

And even President Barack Obama has been criticized for failing to follow through on his 2008 pledge to reinstate the 1994 assault weapons ban, while signing into law pro-gun lobby bills allowing guns to be carried on college campuses, on Amtrak trains and in national parks.

But following last week’s tragedy in Connecticut — and to his credit — this time, the president was quick to react.

On Wednesday, he announced he has appointed Vice President Joseph Biden, who was the architect of the 1994 Violent Crime Control Law Enforcement Act that temporarily banned assault weapons, to lead an administration task force of Cabinet officials and outside organizations on gun control and other safety issues.

And he’s insisting they move on it quickly.

As of this writing, several pro-gun Democrat U.S. senators, including Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Harry Reed (Nevada) and Mark Werner (Virginia), have agreed that they would be open to new restrictions on guns, while all 31 pro-gun Republican senators have, so far, refused to address the issue.

The vast majority of Americans aren’t asking that guns be banned, only better-regulated.

For that to happen, our individual elected officials will have to display much more common sense and courage than they have so far.

Note: Prior to entering the Marine Corps during the Korean War, the only gun I ever fired was a Daisy Air Rifle.

Once in the military, I qualified with just about every major weapon in its arsenal, and, at one point, competed on a Marine Corps pistol and rifle team.

As much as I enjoyed that target-shooting competition, I never developed an addiction to guns.
"In 4 more OMao years you won't like how America looks....I guarantee it."
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#2
That makes no sense. A "militia" has nothing to do with slaves. What an idiot, totally making up nonsense.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#3
RugerGirl;58411 Wrote:That makes no sense. A "militia" has nothing to do with slaves. What an idiot, totally making up nonsense.


Here's the non-crap version of the article where you can do Facebook commenting:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/news_co...3c16a.html
Reply
#4
Pocketprotector;58406 Wrote:...

Note: Prior to entering the Marine Corps during the Korean War, the only gun I ever fired was a Daisy Air Rifle.

Once in the military, I qualified with just about every major weapon in its arsenal, and, at one point, competed on a Marine Corps pistol and rifle team.

As much as I enjoyed that target-shooting competition, I never developed an addiction to guns.
....

If I'm reading this right, the author should be in his 80s.

This part's a little odd. Usually people in this age group are capable of better critical thinking.
Subject matter expert on questions no one's asking.
Reply
#5
PA Rifleman;58420 Wrote:
Pocketprotector;58406 Wrote:...

Note: Prior to entering the Marine Corps during the Korean War, the only gun I ever fired was a Daisy Air Rifle.

Once in the military, I qualified with just about every major weapon in its arsenal, and, at one point, competed on a Marine Corps pistol and rifle team.

As much as I enjoyed that target-shooting competition, I never developed an addiction to guns.
....

If I'm reading this right, the author should be in his 80s.

This part's a little odd. Usually people in this age group are capable of better critical thinking.

He is clearly senile.
I don't suffer from insanity.
I enjoy every minute of it.
Reply
#6
Here's his justification:

Quote:While the Second Amendment topic regarding the control of slaves is rarely discussed today, it's a subject that I first encountered during university courses on the history of the U.S. Constitution a half century ago.

Admittedly you won't find much evidence in the Federalist Papers on this subject. Apparently, Madison and his contemporaries didn't openly publicize this type of "wheeling and dealing." However, several respected historical researchers have used a variety of other sources in arriving at their conclusions.

Professor Carl T. Bogus of the Roger Williams University School of Law compiled wide-ranging evidence from an analysis of Madison's original language and an understanding of how he and other founding fathers drew on England's Declaration of Rights in creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In a 1998 University of California, Davis Law Review article, "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment," he states " "The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minuteman, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder. Southern states feared the proposed federal government would use its new powers to disarm their state militia, rendering the states defenseless against a slave rebellion. Guarding against such an insurrection was a core function of the militia. As the idea of outlawing slavery gained support in the North, Southerners worried that undermining the militia might be a back-door way to achieve this goal.

According to Gary Wills, Pulitzer prize winning Professor of History Emeritus at Northwestern University and one of the foremost authorities on James Madison, "Madison was responding to this fear when he wrote the Second Amendment. He was reassuring the states that had other uses for their well-regulated militias, including the internal policing of slave populations."

Among other historical and legal authorities who are in agreement with this theory are Political Science Professor Robert Spitzer of SUNY University, Cortland, NY, and Professor Michael Belles, an Early American Legal Historian at Emory University.
Reply
#7
ArcticSplash;58505 Wrote:Here's his justification:

Quote:While the Second Amendment topic regarding the control of slaves is rarely discussed today, it's a subject that I first encountered during university courses on the history of the U.S. Constitution a half century ago.

Admittedly you won't find much evidence in the Federalist Papers on this subject. Apparently, Madison and his contemporaries didn't openly publicize this type of "wheeling and dealing." However, several respected historical researchers have used a variety of other sources in arriving at their conclusions.

Professor Carl T. Bogus of the Roger Williams University School of Law compiled wide-ranging evidence from an analysis of Madison's original language and an understanding of how he and other founding fathers drew on England's Declaration of Rights in creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In a 1998 University of California, Davis Law Review article, "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment," he states " "The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minuteman, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder. Southern states feared the proposed federal government would use its new powers to disarm their state militia, rendering the states defenseless against a slave rebellion. Guarding against such an insurrection was a core function of the militia. As the idea of outlawing slavery gained support in the North, Southerners worried that undermining the militia might be a back-door way to achieve this goal.

According to Gary Wills, Pulitzer prize winning Professor of History Emeritus at Northwestern University and one of the foremost authorities on James Madison, "Madison was responding to this fear when he wrote the Second Amendment. He was reassuring the states that had other uses for their well-regulated militias, including the internal policing of slave populations."

Among other historical and legal authorities who are in agreement with this theory are Political Science Professor Robert Spitzer of SUNY University, Cortland, NY, and Professor Michael Belles, an Early American Legal Historian at Emory University.

Ok... then why does the 2A include "being necessary for the security of a free state"? Did Madison seriously think that a slave rebellion threaten the freedoms of the newly founded USA? Somehow I very much doubt it.
Reply
#8
rmagill;58510 Wrote:
ArcticSplash;58505 Wrote:Here's his justification:

Ok... then why does the 2A include "being necessary for the security of a free state"? Did Madison seriously think that a slave rebellion threaten the freedoms of the newly founded USA? Somehow I very much doubt it.

I guess he'll reach for "the slaves would steal massah's guns, shoot and kill them and then win the election and take over state government"

Or some shit like that.

Seriously, we're digging into the 17th century here when DC vs. Heller basically re-wrote the 2nd Amendment. That's why it was called a landmark decision.
Reply
#9
rmagill;58510 Wrote:Ok... then why does the 2A include "being necessary for the security of a free state"? Did Madison seriously think that a slave rebellion threaten the freedoms of the newly founded USA? Somehow I very much doubt it.

I'm thinking that Madison was damn glad we all had guns during that little skirmish back in 1812 that his critics called "Mr. Madison's War." I'm sure Jackson was mighty proud to have citizen volunteers with rifles who knew how to shoot.

I can admit there are things in our history that we might not be quite so proud of, but our history of gun ownership and our willingness to protect the republic is NOTHING for which we need apologize. I get choked up when I visit the Niagara Museum in Erie and go through and read all the exhibits and accounts of the sheer courage and downright balls our leaders possessed back then.

If there's anything we need to apologize for, it's this worthless set of leaders we have now.
I don't suffer from insanity.
I enjoy every minute of it.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Media Mogul Bloomberg Stages Anti-gun Indoctrination Camp for Suggestible Reporters das 1 665 01-18-2015, 12:31 AM
Last Post: spblademaker
  MSM Is Using the Las Vegas Shooting to Attack the Liberty Movement das 4 958 06-15-2014, 11:10 AM
Last Post: middlefinger
  Pro-gun Rights March Against Mainstream Media darrenlobo 0 551 04-09-2014, 07:27 AM
Last Post: darrenlobo
  Crime study: No rise in mass shootings despite media hype... Pocketprotector 0 479 01-14-2014, 02:18 PM
Last Post: Pocketprotector
  Bloomberg says brothers planned Times Square attack D10 4 794 04-25-2013, 09:22 PM
Last Post: D10



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.