I renounce my 2nd amendment right

[jimmy the one]

I renounce & relinquish my alleged 2nd amendment right to keep & bear arms.

I no longer own any guns & I have no intention of owning any ever again (I only ever owned 2 longguns). The 2ndA means nothing to me as far as gun ownership.

I do not believe in the current 'individual rights' interpretation. The 2ndA in 1791 was written to provide arms for a militia common defense, and was subverted in 2008 by a modern day, politically motivated, rightwing supreme court, into an individual right to keep & bear arms, disconnected from militia service.

The 2nd Amendment today has morphed into some sort of carnival of canards, a 2nd Amendment Mythology. In my opinion the 2nd Amendment does not deserve respect but scorn, & fear - fear that a minority can cause so much indirect carnage and get away with it, literally in plain sight, by using the 2ndA as a pretext to obstruct & do next to nothing as far as reasonable & effective gun control of what they themselves espouse in, guns.

When a right is subverted, & people had adhered to the previous interpretation as dictated by the predominance of historical accounts & law & the judicial system, should they just suddenly shift their entire position 180 degrees to accomodate the new subverted right?
The modern popularity of the individual interpretation is not based upon a proper in depth knowledge of the origins of the 2ndA, but on the preachings, whinings, & propaganda of a biased & profit motivated gun industry & it's lobby.

'A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed'.
But there is no well regulated citizens militia any more to be necessary for the security of a free state, the 2ndA is antiquated & obsolete, it provides for something which doesn't exist. In 1791 the 2ndA made sense, today it does not, it's outdated. An armed populace keeping & bearing arms today is more a problem than a solution, with 70 gundeaths & near 200 gun woundings daily, every day, of, the, year.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect us from anything harmful whatsoever. Nor does it provide for firearm ownership, I can walk down to a gunstore after writing this & buy or order a firearm and have it within a few days after passing a background check, but no '2ndA check' needed.
The 2nd Amendment remains viable due to successful propaganda efforts by the gun lobby, fearmongering about phantom boogeymen & fantasizing about an armed fantasy doctrine. The 2nd amendment today does not serve it's intended constitutional purpose, it supports a carnival atmosphere of guns, gunbanners, gunnaholics, & gunnuts. "Step right up ladysmiths & gents, shoot down 5 duckies & you get an nra certified sharpshooter doll!"

The 2nd amendment mythology makes firearm manufacturers wealthier & wealthier as personal arsenals get stacked higher & higher, and turns young children barely able to walk into killers, leaving an awful legacy once the child reaches the age of reason.
The gun lobby has turned gunowners into believing their possession of highly sophisticated killing machines capable of mass murder done quick, is some kind of neat hobby. That there is some tyrannical govt power just around any corner waiting to turn you into a slave to liberalism. That any form of guncontrol is a camel's nose in a tent to ultimate confiscation of all guns, which leads, of course, to slavery to liberalism & a slow torturous premature death (you didn't know?).
The 2nd amendment now says it's OK for anyone to own military styled firearms, without ever having to serve ONE SINGLE DAY in the army or any well regulated militia.
They say they need the 2nd Amendment for protection, yeah, to shirk responsibility & protect from liability when they subsequently misuse their guns.

Since the 2nd Amendment has been subverted from it's original intent into something contrary to what I believe in, & due the appalling carnival atmosphere the 2ndA has devolved into, and since I have no further desire to own any firearms & have long ago finished obligatory military service & am ineligible for militia, I hereby renounce my 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms.
My only regret is it's taken me 4 years to do this.

Note: I am not trying to win a popularity contest, I know some of you will not approve. No problem really. I wanted to start a poll but realize only 'star' members can do so, but do voice your approval or disapproval or ambivalence, as you wish. I also will say, if you have the courage & believe it too, do it too.

BTW, 'jimmy the one' is an english naval term, nickname means the executive officer, every english RMS ship of size has a jimmy on board. I'm not an exalted one or savior or anything, nor ever a real jimmy. Just an ordinary 'chap'.
Royal Navy Colloquial terms in the Royal Navy for the first lieutenant include "number one", "the jimmy" (or "jimmy the one&quot and "James the First". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_lieutenant

[rrneck]

1. Okay. nt

[freshwest]

2. Thanks for explaining all of that. Many of us agree with you completely.

[Flatulo]

3. Thanks for the notification.

[pasto76]

4. the rich were still the rich back then

which means that the well regulated militia was so they could muster a force to put down insurrection and other threats to their power. That whole 'take back the country from tyrants....if necessary" is nice too. Quaint, even.

Different world and a different time. We all agree that the gun nut interpretations are lunacy. Some fucking dude in pittsburgh just went apeshit and chased a buck through a walmart parking lot, in his truck, firing from a handgun at it. Yeah, real responsible ownership.

[Robb]

6. I read that as "chased a duck through a parking lot"

You can imagine. As interesting as your story was, mine was even more so.

[Orrex]

10. In his defense

He was wearing his seatbelt.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. If everyone did as you have done than only nobody would have guns.

[geckosfeet]

7. So what is the "real" 2013 meaning of the 2A? Is it a complete anachronism?

Shall we simply pretend it's not there?

What about states rights and individual states providing for self defense in their constitutions?

[Loudly]

16. An anachronism because of the Civil War. And now willfully misinterpreted.

Plessey meet Brown v. Board of Ed.

McDonald meet.... ?

[closeupready]

8. Fine with me. It's a free country.

[Whoopdedoo]

9. Well you really don't have to relinguish any Right

But you have every right to pitch a bitch in the manner you did.

[mercymechap]

11. I don't own any guns

either, but I'm not totally against people owning them, for hunting, even for protection. What I can't understand is why anyone would want to own an assault weapon, and why anybody would go against background checks. Doesn't make any sense.

[Malik Agar]

12. That’s just like, your opinion, man...

...and I will continue to exercise my Constitutional rights to the fullest extent that I please...

[ProgressiveJarhead]

13. Almost Funny. Mine Was Taken

I never abused my ex-wife. There are no police reports or medical records of her having been abused. Our divorce was granted on the basis of "physical cruelty" in South Carolina. I have since left that state. I practiced Kenpo so that made me dangerous I guess. She wanted the divorce in 90 days and no other criteria met, so she claimed physical cruelty. I don't hit people and don't like violence. The thought of striking my wife was repulsive, but that is how it went.

I tried to buy a military commemorative M9 and was denied because of the background check. Background checks work, even if I was fucked over by a fucked up system in a fucked up state. I wasn't guilty of physical cruelty. My ex is a nut case. No big deal. I don't need the gun and don't feel that the world will end. It is not the end of the world. No worries. I just think that it is strange that some stupid fucking states would allow felons to be able to purchase guns.

Background checks should be mandatory for all firearms purchases. If you feel that you were wrongly denied, then you can appeal the denial. No BFD.

[airplaneman]

14. I agree with you.

We need to have a growing movement of people who don't want to own arms. It only causes more grief than good. It fits too well into a paranoid mind to guarantee that growing numbers of them will cause the horror they fear on innocent others. More people need to believe they are probably safer without firearms and will most likely solve a problems better without them.
-Airplane

[MicaelS]

15. As long as guns are legal,

And I may legally own them, am mentally and physically capable of using them properly and safely, I will do so. I will not be shamed, shunned, embarrassed or made to feel some sort of phony remorse into not owning guns. Not by anyone. Not for any reason.

If I ever reach the decision to not own guns, it will be solely on my own accord.

And I'm not a member of the NRA or any other pro-gun organization. I support Universal Background Checks. I say pass a Universal Background Check law, including Mental Health Reporting. Amend HIPAA as needed, And then make enough available funds to states, so there is no excuse for not reporting violations, or prosecuting, and jailing the hell of Straw Buyers, or felons who attempt to buy guns.

[world wide wally]

17. The mental health aspect is all fine and wonderful... and totally unrealistic.

Exactly "Who" would sign off on this and then exactly "who" gets sued when they are wrong and determine some sicko is mentally fit to own an assault weapon? Who pays for the diagnosis to begin with?
I just wonder if having fewer guns on the streets might have a more positive impact than so called mental health exams... oh yeah!.. That is just another ploy by the NRA to deflect reality from the real problem.

When reason is outlawed
Only outlaws will have reasons

[jmg257]

18. I gave mine up for Lent.

[CapnSteve]

19. Spot on, Jimmy!

The 2nd amendment was a 'pot-sweetener' to get the slave states (primarily Virginia) to ratify the Constitution. The fear was that without the 2nd amendment, the free states could force an end to slavery by ending "slave patrols" (this is what was meant by a well regulated militia - most of the slave states required citizens to participate in slave patrols - keeping down slave rebellions and catching run-away slaves).

Politics then was the same as politics now. The 2nd needs to go the way of slavery - out!

Cheers,

Cap'n Steve

[jmg257]

21. How would the free states end slave patrols? Nothing at all about

Removing pretexts for maintaining a large standing army? No need for common defense, assisting with enforcing laws?

[CapnSteve]

24. OK, Let me fill in the gaps for you...

First, here is Amendment 2, ratified in 1791: "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."

The slave states had established well regulated militias, and required that all citizens (at this point in our history, this would be land-owning white men) be a part of these militias. The primary purpose of these militias were to capture, beat and return run away slaves and protect against any large slave rebellions. They called these militias "slave patrols".

The reason behind the second amendment was to guarantee to the slave states that they would be able to keep their slave patrols. Otherwise, what would keep the federal government from disbanding these slave patrols? Without them, slavery would become untenable.

So: "we'll regulated militia" = "slave patrols"; "State" = Vriginia. The second amendment was a give-away to slave states to get them to ratify the Constitution, and it protects the right for states to raise their own well regulated militias for whatever reason.

Clear?

[jmg257]

25. Familiar with all that. So how could the congress dis-ban the state militias?

These were entities ALL states had, as mandated under the Articles.

"every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered"

And THESE entities were now given VERY specific duties in the new constitution for securing all our liberties.

"Congress shall...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service "

Disbanning them would be an extreme form of tyranny, even without the 2nd amendment to secure them. Now, mention the ability of the congress to destroy them by DISarming them due to their new powers of arming and then you have the primary purpose for the 2nd.

Well regulated militias were important, not just in slave sates, but in free states too - for dealing with insurrections like in MA and PA, enforcing laws, serving as defence from invasion; and VITAL in the federal Constitutionally -mandated roles, required for intial common defence, repealing invasions, etc. etc. And especially necessary for removing the pretext for large standing armies. As the amendment debates in congress clearly show.

Of course putting down slave rebellions was a part of it - for slave states. They had particular interest in maintaing some control over them in light "of their situation", as the Virgina ratifying debates clearly show. They didn't want them to be rendered useless or destroyed by over-use all across the continent, harsh martial law treatment, etc. However, they also realized effective militias, meaning well-regulated, with uniform organization and training via federal guidleines, was clearly an advantage overall.


The 2nd is not all about slavery. Not by a long shot. Just like 'individual private use of arms', slavery was not even mentioned in the congressional debates.

Clearer now?

[CapnSteve]

26. You are confusing federal militias with state militias (aka slave patrols)...

The sections that you cite (Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2 for those following at home) refer to federal militias and the right of Congress to form and equip a standing military.

James Madision (author of the 2nd amendment) even changed "country" to "state" to clearly assure that states would be able to keep control of their slave patrols.

I reccomend this excellent paper on the subject (and yes, Carl Bogus is his real name...):

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

“The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South’s principal instrument of slave control” — professor Carl T. Bogus, Roger Williams University Law School, in his extraordinary thesis, “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment.”

Cap'n Steve

[jmg257]

27. Not at all. You are wrong here. The Constitution uses the term "the Militia"

and the term "the Militia of the several States". They mean the same thing, the same entities ("militia" here is plural -like "fish&quot , the same as those mandated exist under the Articles, those provided for with the militia acts, and existed in the common wealths for decades. Only how they were to be organized and discipline (and used in constitutional roles) changed much (per federal regulations).

They are one and the same - today there would be 50 of them. There was NO federal militia, only STATE militias called forth in federal service.

"Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger...

it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of , the militia of any other state or states

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service"

"provide for calling forth the Militia to..."

"...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress

There was no federal militia till the creation of the National Guard.


I have read Bogus - interesting, but as shown, hardly the complete picture. You might want to read some other sources. I suggest starting with the constitution, then the early Militia Acts where congress 1st used their power re: how to organize and call forth the state militias in federal service.

[CapnSteve]

28. OK, now you are just playing with semantics...

What we are really talking about here (and what James Madison was worried about) is federal control of the militias. I will grant you that the militias were state militias, but the Constitution gives Congress and the President wide control over those militias.

The fact remains: the 2nd amendment was put in place to preserve slavery, concealed in a play for states rights in the form of militia control. It would take the 13th amendment and a bloody Civil War to finally retire the slave patrols.

I think we can agree that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right of citizens to own AR-15s.

[jmg257]

30. Semantics?? What we are REALLY illustrating here is the VERY VALID USE of STATE militias

in vital MANDATORY roles WELL beyond usage as mere slave patrols.

Yes, we know that the feds had been given power over the militias (and is what what Madison pushed for), which was a main reason for enacting the constitution in the 1st place (read the pre-amble). Those powers included providing guidelines on "arming" them, as well as using them in federal service.

MONDAY, June 16, 1788 Virginia
Mr. MADISON. Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to follow the rule of the house, but must pay due attention to the observations which fell from the gentleman. I should conclude, from abstracted reasoning, that they were ill founded I should think that, if there were any object which the general government ought to command, it would be the direction of the national forces. And as the force which lies in militia is most safe, the direction of that part ought to be submitted to, in order to render another force unnecessary. The power objected to is necessary, because it is to be employed for national purposes. It is necessary to be given to every government. This is not opinion, but fact. The highest authority may be given, that the want of such authority in the government protracted the late war, and prolonged its calamities.

He says that one ground of complaint, at the beginning of the revolution, was, that a standing army was quartered upon us. This was not the whole complaint. We complained because it was done without the local authority of this country — without the consent of the people of America. As to the exclusion of standing armies in the bill of rights of the states, we shall find that though, in one or two of them, there is something like a prohibition, yet, in most of them, it is only provided that no armies shall be kept without the legislative authority; that is, without the consent of the community itself. Where is the impropriety of saying that we shall have all army, if necessary? Does not the notoriety of this constitute security? If inimical nations were to fall upon us when defenceless, what would be the consequence? Would it be wise to say, that we should have no defence? Give me leave to say, that the only possible way to provide against standing armies is to make them unnecessary. The way to do this is to organize and discipline our militia, so as to render them capable of defending the country against external invasions and internal insurrections.
...{and a comment for the slavery role}
I conceive that we are peculiarly interested in giving the general government as extensive means as possible to protect us. If there be a particular discrimination between places in America, the Southern States are, from their situation and circumstances, most interested in giving the national government the power of protecting its members.

House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
17, 20 Aug. 1789

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "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."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion.

Mr. Sherman conceived ...We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service;

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity,

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." ... This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army.

Sorry - but NOT ONE mention of slavery in days of debates in the 1st congress. Days of debates on regulating the militias in the 2nd COngress, and not one mention of slavery (or private personal usage).

You can not call something a "fact" simply because you want to it to be true! Yes, slavery was AN issue, especially to slave states like Virginia - but it is clearly not THE issue for making sure the militias will remain armed.


I do agree with your last statement, simply because there are now federal select militias, so the 2nd is obsolete in it's original intent.

[jmg257]

29. Because there was no federal militias, the congress had powers...

not only call forth the state militias, but also

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

Obvious the "two years" was meant to reduce the capabilities/provisions for maintaing large standing Armies, same purpose as was re-inforced with the 2nd. Don't underestimate the fear and mis-trust of that bane of liberty - a large army!

States however, could not have Armies or "Troops" or maintain Navies, but certainly had to continue to maintain well-regulated militias...our securities depended on them!

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep
Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Why were the state militias so vital??

"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty " = "for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" = "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and...against domestic Violence."





Of course the President was also CinC of those forces too.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States

[jimmy the one]

31. revanchism

I think you both have valid points (dunno really wasn't there in 1791);
For the southern states a driving force (or contributing) might've indeed been slave patrols/militias, while for northern states this would'nt've been much of a concern, while the threat of british revanchism, relanding in new england & trying to capture back boston more the reason they'd want a state militia, or incidents like the whiskey & shays rebellions.
I think you're arguing which was the reason for 2ndA, rather than segregating the concerns.

[jmg257]

32. Ha - as usual - words of wisdom! (And what I have been saying all along ;))

You love this stuff - wondering when you might join in!

[ileus]

20. Just don't give up my 2A rights for me.

Thanks

[Peter cotton]

22. You are certainly free to do so.

[jimmy the one]

23. revisionist history - 2ndA

Thanks airplane & capn steve, et al.

gecko: {what is} "real" 2013 meaning of the 2A? Is it a complete anachronism? Shall we simply pretend it's not there?

It's revisionist history, & yeah probably an anachronism after the charles dick act early 1900 which eliminated 'well regulated citizens militias'. Can't ignore it as long as nra remains far right.
Odd, what might've been considered more proper to revoke during the mid 20th century due obsolesence, went the other direction & loosened to allow guns galore now. Prohibition amendment 18 was revoked by 21st amendment, a loosening as well, but a revocation of an amendment.
.. scalia revised the historical interpretation to appease modern day rightwing thought. Had congress enacted a new amendment in 2008 granting americans today an individual rkba I'd've had no real problem with it, since it would represent modern thought & culture, but to twist the interpretation of the original 2ndA into what they did was wrong, since it empowers the nra to block guncontrol legislation using the pretext of infringing on 2ndA's individual rkba (in spite of the qualifier scalia included).

What about states rights and individual states providing for self defense in their constitutions?

Dang gecko, thanks, I'd maybe gone years before realizing this. Okay here I go:
Since I no longer own any guns & have no intent.. (shut up & cut to the chase jimmy)....
Er, I hereby renounce my pennsylvania right to keep & bear arms!
The second renunciation of jimmy, on easter. Gotta get some tarot cards see what it means.

Thanks again gecko, another reason the 2ndA is obsolete & antiquated, for even were it to be interpreted correctly as a militia right, or even revoked, americans could still comfort themselves in their state rkba (tho some of them are obsolete too, re militia).

Jarhead, coinky dinky I was also falsely accused of a crime in south carolina, charges quickly dismissed since I had ample evidence to clear it since based on lies, but don't care for south carolina system, too red a state. You can't get whatever expunged? (bad news SC wants about $250 to do that).

Hey jmg, how'd that lenten gun abstinence play out for you? did you feel relieved, happier, less antsy, or, did you feel naked, vulnerable to crime or people around you? Are you happier that easter lifts the abstinence? (nyuck!)
I've been gunfree for over 10 years now & I feel fine!