quackersmacker Posted October 7, 2015 at 05:32 AM Posted October 7, 2015 at 05:32 AM I think this might become the new "narrative." Really getting tired of "narratives" etc Anyway, check this out................. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment
Jen-in-Normal Posted October 7, 2015 at 08:41 AM Posted October 7, 2015 at 08:41 AM My brain literally shutdown reading this and I just stopped. I don't even know what to say. Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
BShawn Posted October 7, 2015 at 09:00 AM Posted October 7, 2015 at 09:00 AM I "gave up" when I saw "new yorker" >.>
DoverGunner Posted October 7, 2015 at 10:13 AM Posted October 7, 2015 at 10:13 AM I "gave up" when I saw "new yorker" >.>You were/are a whole lot smarter than meMy head hurts now
gLockedandLoaded Posted October 7, 2015 at 10:31 AM Posted October 7, 2015 at 10:31 AM Oh so THAT'S what "well-regulated" means. So while the rest of the Bill of Rights defines what the government can't do, the 2nd amendment actually includes the caveat that guns should be regulated. Right.
gregivq Posted October 7, 2015 at 12:52 PM Posted October 7, 2015 at 12:52 PM So he ends with 'one presidential election may make that happen'. By this do we think that maybe Obummer wasn't hard enough on gun owners? Are Obummer's groupies are finally divorcing him?
quackersmacker Posted October 7, 2015 at 01:59 PM Author Posted October 7, 2015 at 01:59 PM For those too busy to click on the article and actually read it, the gist of it is that the words "well regulated" in the Second Amendment show that the real intent of the Founding Fathers was to have 2A authorize and indeed, demand, gun control.
Kaeghl Posted October 7, 2015 at 03:27 PM Posted October 7, 2015 at 03:27 PM Wow, just wow. Authors use words as tools of their profession, the same way a carpenter uses hammers and nails as their tools of their profession. What we have in that article is a 'carpenter' using a saw as a hammer, and becoming an epic 'fail'. I did notice that there is no way to answer and post a comment to the article. Pity.
Tango7 Posted October 7, 2015 at 03:28 PM Posted October 7, 2015 at 03:28 PM For those too busy to click on the article and actually read it, the gist of it is that the words "well regulated" in the Second Amendment show that the real intent of the Founding Fathers was to have 2A authorize and indeed, demand, gun control.Willful ignorance about changes in linguistics and definitions over 200 years is a convenient way to twist history to your point of view. There are plenty of references for those who wish to look that indicate "regulated" in 1790 was closer in meaning to "efficiently functioning" than "burdened by legislation and policies to the point of nonexistence" that the liberals would have you believe.
Tango7 Posted October 7, 2015 at 03:30 PM Posted October 7, 2015 at 03:30 PM This also helps explain they're attitude:
Bitter Clinger Posted October 7, 2015 at 07:02 PM Posted October 7, 2015 at 07:02 PM My brain literally shutdown reading this and I just stopped. Same thing happened to me and my brain needed to be rebooted, as in a quick boot to the head. The amount of stupid in that article is unbelievable. It's written by your typical low-information gun hater who actually thinks that that "well regulated" means gun regulation and "militia" is meant to describe "military contexts".
ChicagoRonin70 Posted October 7, 2015 at 10:14 PM Posted October 7, 2015 at 10:14 PM It constantly astounds me that people still cannot comprehend that this language . . . "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." . . . means straightforwardly . . . "Since the State needs to be protected by the Militia, the People who make up the Militia should have the Arms and organization to facilitate that protection, and that is something that cannot be infringed upon or interfered with." It doesn't say that the State gets to have arms, or even a Militia. Instead, it says the people have the right to keep and bear arms, because they ARE the Militia that secures the freedom of the State.
chislinger Posted October 8, 2015 at 12:10 AM Posted October 8, 2015 at 12:10 AM Stevens obviously never read Federalist No. 29. That's actually not as bad as I thought, I'm surprised they didn't go with the "militia refers to slave patrols" nonsense that's been making the rounds lately.
Mr. Fife Posted October 8, 2015 at 03:23 AM Posted October 8, 2015 at 03:23 AM Cant wait until NYC falls into the Atlantic.
chip Posted October 8, 2015 at 09:04 AM Posted October 8, 2015 at 09:04 AM Maybe they missed this simple explanation.
GTX63 Posted October 8, 2015 at 11:14 AM Posted October 8, 2015 at 11:14 AM How did the US government in 1790 ever allow the common people to possess firearms after writing the 2A?Didn't they use any common sense? Seems every immigrant jumping out of a boat owned a gun.
Uncle Harley Posted October 8, 2015 at 12:23 PM Posted October 8, 2015 at 12:23 PM Contributors Adam Gopnik Adam Gopnik, a staff writer, has been contributing to The New Yorker since 1986. During his tenure at the magazine, he has written fiction, humor, book reviews, profiles, and reported pieces from abroad Move along folks, just another humorous fiction piece!
Xwing Posted October 8, 2015 at 02:28 PM Posted October 8, 2015 at 02:28 PM The New Yorker.... Does that worthless mag still even exist?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.