Don’t Forget the First Half of the Second Amendment

[ADK Native]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dont-forget-the-first-half-of-the-second-amendment/ar-AAYdmAo?ocid=SL5GDHP&li=BBnbfcL

First, I need to point out that The Atlantic is not part of conservative or even balanced media.  It is important to follow the anti-gun media to intelligently, but with courtesy expose their ignorance.  The real crime is gun control advocates are relentless in the quest for more gun control laws regardless that they are not fixing the PEOPLE VIOLENCE problem.

The article states “they ignore entirely the imperative that precedes, the framing device of the whole thing—to protect “the security of a free State.”

“They ignore”?  The Second Amendment was crafted to first give militia rights to all states to protect themselves since there was some notable distrust between different states.  This “militia” evolved into our present day National Guard that is commanded by the state’s governor to serve at their digression.  The second part was an individual right as the authors were too familiar with tyrannical government leaders for individual protection.  Simply said giving you the means necessary for “your God given right to self-defense”.

 

The article states “According to the gun lobby, individuals engaged in their own fantasy of the heroic citizen equipped to do battle against tyrannical government agents would suffer incalculable collective costs were Americans to restrict their access to weapons.”

OK, using the demeaning phrase “their own fantasy of the heroic citizen equipped to do battle against tyrannical government agents” sheds light on the anti-gun attitude of The Atlantic.  Sad, but these are the same supporters of more gun control, but are silent when it comes to legislating better security and defensive measure to protect children. 

 

The article states “If the choice were the lives of children or the political imagination of a vocal group of armament activists, whose costs should matter more? The inconvenience of some or the lives of others?”

How about the government “choice” to advocate for improving the security and defense of schools, serious punishment for violent criminals, institutionalizing the violently mentally ill and a real war on drugs as opposed to more gun control?

 

The article states “Meanwhile, the rest of us suffer the costs of the actual tyranny that living in a state of fear of mass gun violence creates.”

Law abiding firearm owners are suffering for gun control nonsense, but let’s not profile the people committing PEOPLE VIOLENCE.  It may come as a shock to learn about the risk factors and linked crime that leads to PEOPLE VIOLENCE and how the government has caused and failed to correct these problems.  The anti-gun supporters would be exposed to the truth that there are other factors above and beyond firearm ownership that causes PEOPLE VIOLENCE.

 

The article states “Proposals to make schools more like fortresses only add to the costs children bear rather than addressing the root constitutional problem—that insufficient regulation of guns impairs the liberties of all.”

What “cost children bear”?  What “cost” does having an armed officer and/or teachers cause the children?  What “cost” does having improved communication equipment with staff and local law enforcement cause the children?  What “cost” doe having harden barriers to enter a school cause children?  What “cost” does having more secure doors to the classroom to kept perpetrators out so the children can escape out a window?  Funny how The Atlantic does not draw any analogies to our present airport security to prevent PEOPLE VIOLENCE.  Why would The Atlantic ignore the success of TSA and the Air Marshals?  Because it works?

 

Finally the article states “We can be free, but only if we regulate guns—just as the Second Amendment tells us.”

No, regulating firearms is only part of protecting innocent lives.  The government needs to support good law enforcement, better prosecution and punishment for violent criminals, institutionalize the violently mentally ill and attack the common denominators associated with violent crime like the distribution, sale and use of drugs, and to eliminate the environment that causes that effect our youth from being at risk to turn to crime like failed schools and the welfare system that enables fatherless homes.  Then “we can be free”.

[Grouse]

The word "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean drowned by government laws.  It means to be working like a Swiss watch.  There were clocks years ago called "Regulator", meaning it was regular and precise.  Well regulated meant drilled, proficient and ready for battle at all times when the founders used it in the 2nd Amendment.

[DoubleDose]

...and that is why you cannot correctly interpret the Bill of Rights (or 2A) without the Federalist papers, which explain and put things in context.

[boo711]

On 6/8/2022 at 1:04 PM, ADK Native said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dont-forget-the-first-half-of-the-second-amendment/ar-AAYdmAo?ocid=SL5GDHP&li=BBnbfcL

First, I need to point out that The Atlantic is not part of conservative or even balanced media.  It is important to follow the anti-gun media to intelligently, but with courtesy expose their ignorance.  The real crime is gun control advocates are relentless in the quest for more gun control laws regardless that they are not fixing the PEOPLE VIOLENCE problem.

The article states “they ignore entirely the imperative that precedes, the framing device of the whole thing—to protect “the security of a free State.”

“They ignore”?  The Second Amendment was crafted to first give militia rights to all states to protect themselves since there was some notable distrust between different states.  This “militia” evolved into our present day National Guard that is commanded by the state’s governor to serve at their digression.  The second part was an individual right as the authors were too familiar with tyrannical government leaders for individual protection.  Simply said giving you the means necessary for “your God given right to self-defense”.

 

The article states “According to the gun lobby, individuals engaged in their own fantasy of the heroic citizen equipped to do battle against tyrannical government agents would suffer incalculable collective costs were Americans to restrict their access to weapons.”

OK, using the demeaning phrase “their own fantasy of the heroic citizen equipped to do battle against tyrannical government agents” sheds light on the anti-gun attitude of The Atlantic.  Sad, but these are the same supporters of more gun control, but are silent when it comes to legislating better security and defensive measure to protect children. 

 

The article states “If the choice were the lives of children or the political imagination of a vocal group of armament activists, whose costs should matter more? The inconvenience of some or the lives of others?”

How about the government “choice” to advocate for improving the security and defense of schools, serious punishment for violent criminals, institutionalizing the violently mentally ill and a real war on drugs as opposed to more gun control?

 

The article states “Meanwhile, the rest of us suffer the costs of the actual tyranny that living in a state of fear of mass gun violence creates.”

Law abiding firearm owners are suffering for gun control nonsense, but let’s not profile the people committing PEOPLE VIOLENCE.  It may come as a shock to learn about the risk factors and linked crime that leads to PEOPLE VIOLENCE and how the government has caused and failed to correct these problems.  The anti-gun supporters would be exposed to the truth that there are other factors above and beyond firearm ownership that causes PEOPLE VIOLENCE.

 

The article states “Proposals to make schools more like fortresses only add to the costs children bear rather than addressing the root constitutional problem—that insufficient regulation of guns impairs the liberties of all.”

What “cost children bear”?  What “cost” does having an armed officer and/or teachers cause the children?  What “cost” does having improved communication equipment with staff and local law enforcement cause the children?  What “cost” doe having harden barriers to enter a school cause children?  What “cost” does having more secure doors to the classroom to kept perpetrators out so the children can escape out a window?  Funny how The Atlantic does not draw any analogies to our present airport security to prevent PEOPLE VIOLENCE.  Why would The Atlantic ignore the success of TSA and the Air Marshals?  Because it works?

 

Finally the article states “We can be free, but only if we regulate guns—just as the Second Amendment tells us.”

No, regulating firearms is only part of protecting innocent lives.  The government needs to support good law enforcement, better prosecution and punishment for violent criminals, institutionalize the violently mentally ill and attack the common denominators associated with violent crime like the distribution, sale and use of drugs, and to eliminate the environment that causes that effect our youth from being at risk to turn to crime like failed schools and the welfare system that enables fatherless homes.  Then “we can be free”.

Very well said. I like the points you brought up.  Hardening the entrance to schools is a must.  Prevents a shooter from gaining access to a school or a classroom. But never have kids escape through a classroom window.