Left-wing journalism professor calls for mass slaughter of nra

[araine]

Haha, nope. I'm not really a conservative, and prefer not to be called one. I suppose that Democrats never take anything out of context, and never try to twist words.

By the way.. "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-."

So we have a right to a well regulated militia and we have the right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed. Lets go down to the definition of infringed.

Infringed: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

So you see, that means that our right to keep and bear arms cannot be undermined or even encroached on, which means any regulation on any type of armament would be illegal according to the second amendment.

and you do the typical right wing mind lapse of missing WELL REGULATED MILITIA. and the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment is part of the SAME SENTENCE and refers to MILITIA nowhere does it give unlimited rights for citizens to own any gun they want it is scary when folks having English as a 3rd language knows more about English grammar than some that have it as native tongue.

""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.""

Is the wording that got ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson as secretary of state.

What most right wingers think is in the 2nd amendment is this
""
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.""

This is what i feel most on the right wing side thinks the constitution says regarding the 2nd amendment. clearly a different meaning than what is in the actual document that got signed into the constitution. notice how you totally change the meaning if you remove the comma and replace it with a period and make 2 sentences out of it. And never forget the comma is infact in the constitution and as such the 2nd part of the sentence relates to the first part of the sentence.

[Gemini Sunrise]

Conspiracy to assassinate an elected president is most certainly treason, not 'close to treason'. Most of the time spies are expelled from the country, not killed. The Rosenberg thing was a really weird case, iirc.

Well, it did happen during the Cold War... Shit was strange back then, to be sure.

[Mormolyce]

and you do the typical right wing mind lapse of missing WELL REGULATED MILITIA. and the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment is part of the SAME SENTENCE and refers to MILITIA nowhere does it give unlimited rights for citizens to own any gun they want it is scary when folks having English as a 3rd language knows more about English grammar than some that have it as native tongue.

Weeeeeell... unfortunately the exact letter of the Constitution is not as important as the Supreme Court rulings which interpret it. The issue was murky for many decades until in 2008 the Supreme Court made a controversial ruling that implied that the 2nd Amendment did in fact apply to individuals and downplayed the "well-regulated militia" clause.

However the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow you to own literally any kind of weapon.

[obdigore]

Well, it did happen during the Cold War... Shit was strange back then, to be sure.

Ahhh McCarthyism. Fearmongering is bad, mmmkay.

[Mormolyce]

Well, it did happen during the Cold War... Shit was strange back then, to be sure.

If you look at it, all of the actual executions happened during wartime. Outside of a war people are a lot less comfortable with executions for treason so they tend to get commuted (even a lot of convicted traitors in WWII for example were still not actually executed). The most egregious was probably the guy tearing down the Union flag in the Civil War, that was pretty much the Union army making an example out of him. It was not even established that the city it happened in was under Union control at the time.

[mvaliz]

"Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad."

"Except it won’t be a boot. It’ll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won’t do them any good."

He was making a point about that the military they're worried about "Defending" against can't be defended against. He wasn't LITERALLY saying for them to attack the NRA.

Especially when you strategically left out the NEXT FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH:

So, to return to reality, all of us. Let’s make common sense gun safety a deciding issue for 2014 and beyond. The NRA certainly has. Let’s push back. We the People. The 85 percent who support more robust background checks. And when the next domestic terrorist with an assault rifle comes along, we can blame the leaders and fringe of the NRA for arming them.

[Gemini Sunrise]

If you look at it, all of the actual executions happened during wartime. Outside of a war people are a lot less comfortable with executions for treason so they tend to get commuted (even a lot of convicted traitors in WWII for example were still not actually executed). The most egregious was probably the guy tearing down the Union flag in the Civil War, that was pretty much the Union army making an example out of him. It was not even established that the city it happened in was under Union control at the time.

I was more going for people just going for a blood craze since they found two "rat-bastard commie spies". But yeah, you're right as well.

[Wells]

Ahhh McCarthyism. Fearmongering is back, mmmkay.

Fixed that for you

[Eats Compost]

That website is truly atrocious. Why does it exist?

[Deleted]

That website is an 8th grade project, right? Don't tell me that crap is actually written by adults with an actual degree in journalism.

[eillas]

That website is an 8th grade project, right? Don't tell me that crap is actually written by adults with an actual degree in journalism.

the website seems more of biased leaning reporting with propaganda mixed into it. ah just noticed the top the logo, figures as much.

[iggie]

Just lure the NRA into a movie theater and let some left wing nutcases exercise their freedom(s) to carry guns. I'm not even American and the NRA pisses me off.

[Gemini Sunrise]

Just lure the NRA into a movie theater and let some left wing nutcases exercise their freedom(s) to carry guns. I'm not even American and the NRA pisses me off.

Damn, son. That movie theater must be fucking HUGE.

[Orbitus]

That website is truly atrocious. Why does it exist?

Because people like Therionn actually believe stuff like this. Just like they listen to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly.

[vitalic]

Weeeeeell... unfortunately the exact letter of the Constitution is not as important as the Supreme Court rulings which interpret it. The issue was murky for many decades until in 2008 the Supreme Court made a controversial ruling that implied that the 2nd Amendment did in fact apply to individuals and downplayed the "well-regulated militia" clause.

However the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow you to own literally any kind of weapon.

The 2008 SCOTUS decision was close, 5-4, and very hotly contested. They actually went against the previous history of the rulings on 2nd amendment, which had all agreed that 2nd amendment is about state militias and not individuals.

The dissenting opinions are pretty damning. The problem is, and the reason I bring this up, the latest ruling on the 2nd amendment does now protect the rights of individuals to own weapons and makes no distinction as to what kinds of weapons or for what purpose. There's no talk of "law abiding citizens" having the right to weapons, only "the people". Every other amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to everybody, regardless of their character or legal status; right to trial by jury, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, right to due process, etc. So if you read the 2nd amendment as applying to individuals, everybody has the fundamental right to carry weapons, even if they're felons or mentally unstable.

This is of course a mistake and is not how the 2nd amendment was meant to be read. This latest ruling is a giant mistake and now means that every weapons law in existence might be vulnerable to constitutional review.

Like the OP said ( ) the SCOTUS is often wrong. The 2nd amendment, when viewed from a proper historical context, is clearly talking about the rights of states to maintain their own armies. SCOTUS screwed up pretty big in 2008. This was a case where the courts really decided to make up constitutional principles out of thin air; the right of certain types of individuals to bear certain types of weapons under certain conditions, etc. It is a little worrying to see so much power in the hands of the courts to be honest.

The dissenting opinions start at about p. 68 here http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf and they're pretty damned entertaining and convincing. And if you're not convinced that 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individuals, read the arguments presented in the dissenting opinions. Before this morning I was undecided on the issue.

[Pendulous]

The article linked comes from extremely biased source, which can't lead anywhere good. Add to that the fact that it has just devolved into a gun thread, which we already have a megathread for, and there' no real point to keep this open.