Reasoned Debate: Our Second Amendment Rights & Preventing Firearm Violence

Alabama State House GOP “Dare Defend Our Rights” gun logo, from the FaceBook page of Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn

Recently in another Social Media forum, a long-time friend had posted a link to a site operated for the Alabama State House GOP faction, which is a so-called “supermajority” in that state’s elected legislative body. That site may be found here: http://ALHouseGOP.com/WeDareDefend/.

Perceiving that that those political ideologues were very likely drumming up support for their positions based upon pure emotion and fear, rather than reasoned, rational and informed debate, I initially responded by quickly writing a somewhat sarcastic response, precisely worded to give pause for thought. My initial response elicited a query, to which I delightfully replied more eruditely.

The exchange as it exists presently, now follows.

• Me: Yeah. Alabama was wrong on their right to segregation and their right to deny civil rights, too.

• Friend: So, do you support the

Ronald Reagan co-signed letter supporting Assault Gun Ban

The Second Amendment, as some have so misbelieved, has no limitations. However, as we all know, there are limits to our First Amendment freedom-of-speech rights. For example, one cannot yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. It is reasonable, therefore, that limitations should similarly exist for the Second Amendment, some of which already include denying firearm ownership to convicted felons, and those who are mentally unstable.

As some have come to so interpret it, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to empower citizens with the ability to overthrow a despotic government – not to hunt wild game. If that be the case, one mustn’t be intellectually dishonest about the matter, and must acknowledge if that interpretation is at least accurate in part, then the Second Amendment was written to give citizens the right and authority to kill their governmental leaders.

Regarding how the spirit of the Second Amendment might be honored while simultaneously providing sane regulation to prevent tragedies as we have most recently witnessed, I offer the following.

The Second Amendment reads

“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.”

• People who own firearms – particularly military style assault weapons – should be required to, as part of their ownership – be active members in good standing of “a well regulated militia.”

• Individuals who only own hunting firearms could be exempted from militia participation requirements.

• All firearm owners should be required to pay a federal tax upon acquisition of the firearm, no matter the type.

• All firearm owners should be required to submit to a federal background investigation and security clearance, including fingerprinting.

• Military style firearms could be subject to an acquisition tax, the amount of which could be the equivalence of the purchase price, or more – similarly to the tax imposed upon fully-automatic weapons.

• Annual accountability for all firearm owners – essentially asking the legal status of the individual, e.g., whether they’ve been arrested, or convicted of any disqualifying crime or behavior, and performing mandatory annual background checks with federal, state & local Law Enforcement Agencies.

• Lying or attempting to deceive to obtain a firearm by deliberately misleading would be a federal crime, the punishment of which could be determined – perhaps even including a ban on ownership for a set period of time, up to and including a permanent lifetime ban.

—

Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban

May 05, 1994|WILLIAM J. EATON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — Three former presidents endorsed legislation Wednesday to ban the future manufacture, sale and possession of combat-style assault weapons as a closely divided House neared a showdown today on the hotly controversial issue.

Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sent a letter to all House members expressing their support for the measure, effectively joining President Clinton in urging approval of the ban.

Together, the four make a formidable lobby, stretching across

Little Known History: The NRA Once Supported Gun Control.

Monday, Jan 14, 2013 10:00 AM EST

The NRA once supported gun control

It may seem hard to believe, but for decades the organization helped write federal laws restricting gun use

By Steven Rosenfeld, Alternet

The NRA once supported gun control.

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

For nearly a century after its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro gun control organizations. It was not until 1977 when the NRA that Americans know today emerged, after libertarians who equated owning a gun with the epitome of freedom and fomented widespread distrust against government—if not armed insurrection—emerged after staging a hostile leadership coup.

In the years since, an NRA that once encouraged better marksmanship and reasonable gun control laws gave way to an advocacy organization and political force that saw more guns as the answer to society’s worst violence, whether arming commercial airline pilots after 9/11 or teachers after the Newtown, while opposing new restrictions on gun usage.

It is hard to believe that the NRA was committed to gun-control laws for most of the 20th century—helping to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s.

“Historically, the leadership of the NRA was

Thinking of Liberty, Freedom, Rights and Responsibilites… and not so much about Ted Nugent

Some may not be familiar with Ted Nugent nor the “Motor City Madman” antics for which he became renown… or infamous, take your pick.

Certainly, there are things about which many of us are passionate, and hold dear – among them, family, freedom, and for some, firearms.

While by no means am I anti-gun, I am anti-nutcase. To be explicit, the reader should understand that what I mean to express by that sentiment, is that no one takes the ramblings of a madman seriously, and to be taken seriously, one should not behave or carry on as a madman. When on one hand someone appears civil, well-spoken even erudite, then later appears obscenely venomous, vitriolic, rude, crude and perhaps even diabolical, then it causes one to wonder if there is some degree of mental instability present, such as – for example – schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Individuals with such mental defect are automatically excluded from, and denied firearm ownership.

Since 1968, federal law has forbidden firearm ownership to those whom are declared mentally unfit. However, the problem with that has been twofold, which means that first and foremost, a court must first

Guns and politics

Republicans address the issue of gun ownership as “hunting.”

What a bunch of idiots.

Guns were not invented to hunt.

They were invented to kill human beings.

Period.

And our Second Amendment doesn’t say one damn thing about hunting. Matter of fact, the mention of hunting is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Neither is fishing, for that matter.

Just to refresh your memory – and in case those 5th grade lessons didn’t take hold – here it is for your benefit.

“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.”

Now… find the word “hunting” anywhere in it.

Nope. You won’t find it.

That’s because the words “Militia,” “security,” “free” and “right” have not one thing to do with hunting, or putting food on the table.

And just in the case your American history is all fuzzied up,