Is the NRA and GOP using the 2nd Amendment as a distraction?

Is the NRA and GOP using the 2nd Amendment as a distraction?

Legally, only part of the bill of rights may be about the people. It is noted by the supreme court that Privilege or Immunity Clauses refer to “citizens” whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any “person”. There is much question on why the founding fathers who took such great lengths to word thing had intended the BOR to be for all Americans or those of a special class drafting the bills. Even the 2nd, as you know, was written to protect the rights of the militia and had more than 20 re-writes before it was even voted on the first time.

The USSR used Hitlers possible corpse to distract the world while building a wall around what would become East Germany and this seems to be much the same. Every time a contingency of Americans call for greater gun safety a smaller contingency of gun enthusiast scream, “They are trying to take your guns”. Following these battle cries the NRA and a slew of politicians stand in line to fill their financial war chests, gun and ammo sales spike and people are up in arms (pun intended) pitted American against America. At the same time this has happens, representatives use it to grow funding of the Militarily, but not for the soldiers but rather the companies of the lobbyist who fund their campaigns and livelihood. They have used the money to write out Thomas Jefferson from the history books; his religious views did not match, create PAC groups to funnel greater power and wealth away from the people and to special interest groups, distract the people from issues around human rights, war efforts that cost American lives but fund their private corporations, attacked social security and diligently sought legislation that has actually stripped Americans of their country.

We know the the 2nd was based around a Militia. We know it was added to allow states the right to protect themselves with their citizens. However, we don’t know if it crossed the founding fathers minds that someday it would be possible to own a Gatling gun that fits into your pocket; let alone a Gatling gun. In fact chances are pretty good they did not think of weapon technology past that of the flint lock of that time. They had cannons so was that something they thought to be covered? Although, it is not something that could be “bared”? So does that mean that weapons of such destruction need not be included/excluded since they are so heavy they can’t be carried around? As such the battle rages on between originalist and strict constructionist

The ratification of the second was originally sought to give clarification as to the rights of a person to hunt on their own property. Instead however, the Constitutional delegates altered the language of the Second Amendment several times to emphasize the military context of the amendment and the role of the militia as a force to defend national sovereignty, curb uprisings, and protect against tyranny.

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding the delegates of England’s efforts “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein. However, since the organization of a formal army would make this a mute point extending that right to only those actively serving. However, I don’t buy this since that would remove the power of the states to stand up against the government.

In the original bill of right Madison proposed, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”. This brought about great controversy focused all around the religious exception. and was read in as, “A well regulated militia, 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 person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms”. That became, “A well regulated militia, 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” and that lead to, “A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. As you can see all of the first drafts dealt with state power and religious rights. The senate later sought to have the words, “for common defense” inserted into the passage but was defeated on grounds that it could force the militia to choose sides and as such removing the very right they sought to protect; the right to form a militia and bear arms to protect the interest of the state and country. It finally passed the senate as, “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” but much like today, the house quietly amendment in by adding , “being necessary to” to the passage.

Several Supreme court justices have said, “The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”. In fact, if you apply the grammatical structure of the time of writing, and not that of modern day, to the 2nd is has everything to do with being part of the militia and not ones rights as an individual separate of state. But who knows, maybe these guys already used 20th century grammar?!?

While there are no supreme court cases trying the absolute right to bear arms the supreme court has written, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”. There are two point here that the Supreme court has further ruled: 1) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose 2) States have the right to regulate those rights.

As such, the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Given the governments fire power owning anything less that fighter jet makes the entire right to carry to defend the state and people from the government a mute point.

To date lower courts have held, the firearms registration procedures; the prohibition on assault weapons; and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment…this has never been challenged in the Supreme Court and begs to ask the question, “What then is the NRA actually doing with all the money (Nearing a trillion Dollars) they have been collecting over the 2nd Amendment rights”?