Skip to content

January 14, 2011

15

oh that NRA second amendment!

by Andrea O'Connell

Today in South Florida, while a gunman made his way into the Broward County Courthouse (read story), and while a golfer was shot and killed in the back, on the golf course, our lawmakers in Tallahassee are pushing a new gun bill that is backed / written by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The purpose of the bill?  To loosen current regulations on the use of gun and ammunition ownership, and to prohibit lawmakers in Florida from fashioning stricter gun laws that would change or supersede the law.

Senator Joe Negron (R), has been working with the NRA for six months to craft this bill.  Negron said it’s entirely coincidental that this bill was filed this week while the tragedy in Tuscon was unfolding.

As if that is not bad enough, Senator Greg Evers (R), and Rep. Jason Brodeur (R) filed identical bills that would make it a felony for health care professionals (doctors or any medical provider), to inquire about whether a patient has access to firearms.

Currently in Broward County, a three day waiting period (a “cooling off” period) is in place, and has been law since 2001.  Negron’s bill would do away with the cooling off period entirely.  In addition, the law would prohibit all lawmakers from making changes to the gun laws once this bill is in effect.  All of Florida would have to abide by one state gun law, one standard as opposed to variations from county to county.

The second amendment says:

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.

I interpret the second amendment this way:  A member of a MILITIA, who is protecting the state, has the right to bear arms.  Do you read it this way, too?

The founders were not giving all people the right to bear arms.

Is the NRA so powerful, mighty, and rich, they purchased the second amendment?   I feel they have.  They own it.

Therefore, the second amendment should read:  A well regulated NRA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Incidentally, why do we need high-powered guns?   Well, of course we need to add assault weapons to the second amendment, too!

How’s this: A well regulated NRA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear assault weapons, shall not be infringed.

Sound good?

Oh, and Glocks, like the one used by the Tuscon madman, are very common now.  And Uzi’s they’re popular, too.

So, we need to change the amendment again.  It should read: A well regulated NRA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Glocks, Uzi machine guns and other assault weapons, shall not be infringed.

Yes. That makes better sense, and it fits the reality of our neighborhoods with greater accuracy.  As a matter of fact, in Massachusetts, a trial just concluded that involved an Uzi and an 8 year old.  The Sherriff in charge of the gun show was on trial, facing manslaughter for putting on a gun fair in which an 8 year old boy was killed.  The Sherriff was found not guilty.

An 8 year old boy used an Uzi submachine gun at a gun fair.

Correction:  This incident happened at a gun range that was connected to the gun fair.  The father of the 8 year boy wanted his son to have his first experience using a gun – an Uzi.  Although workers at the gun show attempted to dissuade the father from allowing his son to use the Uzi, as they felt it inappropriate for a boy his age, the father insisted.  The father signed a waiver allowing his son to use the assault weapon, and set about videotaping his son using the gun. That is when the gun went off.

The Sheriff was found not guilty and the father was not charged.  Asked why the father was not charged, the DA explained that the father will feel guilty the rest of his life.

Now the second amendment looks like this: A well regulated NRA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of children and adults to keep and bear Glocks, Uzi machine guns and other assault weapons, shall not be infringed.

There are so many guns in our communities; the second amendment has come true.

Our neighbors are the militia now.  But, here’s the rub: No one regulates this militia of madmen but the madmen themselves, as we have seen in Tuscon, and as we see all across the country every single day.

A well regulated NRA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of madmen, children and adults to keep and bear Glocks, Uzi machine guns and other assault weapons, shall not be infringed.

That’s more like it.

Advertisements
15 Comments Post a comment
  1. Sherry
    Jan 14 2011

    Andrea sez:
    “I interpret the second amendment this way: A member of a MILITIA, who is protecting the state, has the right to bear arms. Do you read it this way, too?”

    I used to read it that way. But, from the Readers Digest book, You and the Law (1973) it is simply put:

    “Although this right (to bear arms) is apparently garanteed by the Constitution, in practice it is regulated by state laws. The provision, in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’ has been held not to limit the states’ rights to legislate in this area. The United States is the only nation whose citizens are permitted such an unlimited right, which is partly a holdover from our frontier traditions and partly a reflection of the states’ fear of a too-powerful central government in the period following the Revolution. This right has cost us dearly in lives of persons killed by the disaffected, the unstable and emotionally ill, and it seems likely to be more and more restricted.”

    It was never meant to be just for the militia else we would never have known in our history about duels and vigilante justice and assasinations and the use of arms to protect private property,etc.

    I’m all for stricter regulations but the only ones that will feel the effect will be law abiding citizens. Criminals could give a rat’s rear about regulations. I think random drug testing and psyche evals should be done on owners, too, because I’ve seen perfectly sane people become insane from drug use, and I believe that is what happened with Loughner. You can tell by looking at his mug shots from just a few years apart. His eyes convey insanity in his last mug shot. My relative is the same and, crapola! he has a permit to carry a gun. Anyways, it isn’t guns in the hands of law abiding American citizens we need to fear but the criminals and “disaffected” with these weapons we need to fear. And these can be found in all fifty states not just Arizona.

    That said, what the hell is up with being able to own guns such as glocks??? I’m OK with handguns and rifles but glocks and other such assault weapons? Why would any private citizen need an automatic to protect their person or property? {shaking head}

    Reply
    • Jan 15 2011

      Hey Sherry. You always have such wise comments – thank you for your post, as always.
      I do understand where you’re coming from, and like you, I respect the right of individuals to own handguns and rifles. Many people are just collectors and never use them, others use them for sport, or just at the shooting range. Many keep them under their bed for safety. Law abiding citizens should certainly have that right, I know this in my head. My heart wishes all guns were banned, even from the police. I’m dreamin’, I know this is way way “out there” as far as reality goes.

      I do wish we had stricter gun laws. I wish we had psyche tests, and a person had to be evaluated by a mental health professional before owning a gun of any kind.

      Ain’t gonna happen, I know: Pipe dreams….

      Reply
    • Jan 15 2011

      by the way, Sherry… you ended up in moderation – you must be using a new email address because your comments weren’t recognized and I had to save you from the black hole….LOL. So sorry!

      Reply
      • Sherry
        Jan 15 2011

        LOL! I thought you were having problems again! I logged into my blog account with my new email address and that’s what caused me to go into Aw Mod.

    • weezie
      Jan 15 2011

      Because none of them know how to shoot straight. lol. The fact is, noone should own a firearm unless they have passed a rigid test. How is it you have to be tested to drive an auto (also a weapon), a train, a plane, a bus, a limo and I could go on but REALLY! How ridiculous does this have to get? I would also implant very very heavy fines to those that sell guns to an unregistered, unlicensed (exam tested) person. That’s my humble opinion and I don’t even believe anyone should own a gun, but alas we are talking about United States of America. Don’t get your feathers tangled, I love Americans I just hate how Washington has all the power and abuses it, to keep their family fortunes in tact.

      Reply
  2. Sherry
    Jan 14 2011

    One more thing I forgot to mention-it has bothered me the last couple of days that a 7 year old was allowed to shoot an Uzi which cost the little guy his life. If anyone is too young to own a gun then he/she should not be able to fire one off! Not even under supervision! No way…no how!

    Reply
    • Jan 15 2011

      absolutely right! There’s no reason in the world for a kid to touch a gun! That’s what play guns are for….

      Reply
      • weezie
        Jan 15 2011

        Try reasoning with a child? That’s like putting candy in front of them, turning your back, walking away, after you have told him/her not to touch it. Laughable. The parents should be shot.

  3. Isabella
    Jan 15 2011

    Andrea,
    With all due respect, I just wanted to clarify the story you told about the young boy who died at the gun show. His father took him to the show where outside there was a shooting range. The father took him to the shooting range, and signed a waiver, for him to shoot the gun.

    He was told by two different workers, at the show, that it was inappropriate for a child this age to shoot the gun. He signed the waiver anyway and proudly stood by to video his son during his first “gun experience.” They were able to use the video in court as it also captured this dear boys death.

    The verdict was returned today and the Sheriff was found not guilty. The DA commented, when questioned after the verdict as to why he had not charged the father, that he felt the Dad was going to feel plenty guilty enough for the rest of his life. BTW, the Dad is an Emergency Room Doctor.

    Reply
    • Jan 15 2011

      Isabella, I am so grateful to you for taking the time to correct me with regards to this story. I only read one account of the story, had I read more, I would have realized my mistake.

      Such a tragic, tragic story. Unbelievable, really.

      Thank you again for taking the time to point this out to me!

      Reply
  4. Isabella
    Jan 15 2011

    Not a problem Andrea. I am glad I could help, I just wish it was not such a sad story. I know the Dad did not anticipate this happening, but IMO it was such poor judgement to allow this child to participate. Surely working in the ER he has seen the terrible effects that gun use can cause.

    Nancy Grace recently covered a case that happened just a few weeks ago. A 10 year old boy was given 4 different guns by his parents. His parents had seperated and his Mom was not comfortable having the guns in the house without the Dad living there. This child had anger management problems and had even had a police report written up on him after a aggressive action at school.

    But, no one took away the guns, in fact, they were kept in his room under his sole supervision. Again, just a 10 year old child.

    One morning his Mom asked him to do his chores and they had a difference of opinion because he did not want to do chores. So, he went in his room, picked a gun, and returned to the living room. At that time he shot her point blank in the head killing her instantly. He then turned the gun on his 15yr old sister, who was the only other person alive in the house. She begged for her life and thankfully he did not shoot her. Just like the other story, loss of life by gun, and a family that will never be the same.

    Reply
    • jon
      Jan 18 2011

      I watched that whole thing on NG and although I’m sorry the mother was shot,if she didn’t want them in the house or was uncomfortable having them there, she should have removed them from her 10 year old’s room herself when he was out of the house. Why was she so afraid of the father that she wouldn’t do this when he wasn’t living there and it was, technically, her house.

      Reply
  5. jon
    Jan 18 2011

    the problem with the NRA and gun ownership in this country is that the constitution hasn’t been amended to adjust to the times in which we live. It was one thing in the 1700’s for people to own guns but not now, esp. automatic weapons.

    Reply
    • Jan 18 2011

      I agree with you 100 percent, Jon. The Founders had no way of knowing what the future held. How could they? If they knew about the assault weapons, the various automatic pistols and silencers, I am certain that the second amendment would not look anything like what it does today.
      We live in a dangerous world, made more dangerous by the second amendment and the NRA…….

      Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Let Justice for Trayvon Shine | only dreamin'

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: