Louisiana Shooter Was Far Right Nut

[Minimalist]

As it stands the current interpretations of the 2ed Amendment are in stark contrast to the intent of those who wrote the Constitution. But what else to expect from a government that, long ago, sold itself to the highest bidder. And there are no higher bidders than those who profit from violence, war, and death.[/color][/size][/font]

I don't think that is correct. As far as I know, all the founders were against the government having the power to disarm the citizens.

Be careful here because this is exactly the same game the religious right plays with the First Amendment and the establishment clause - claiming the founders didn't really want to keep the church out of government. Most of us are familiar with the founder's writings on the subject of church-state separation which make clear their intentions. I'm too lazy to go searching for it but I believe it's the same with the 2nd Amendment. Whether they would have felt the same way in today's world is another matter. That's what amendments are for.

The problem that fundies have is that they fail to comprehend that the courts have interpreted the First Amendment's "Establishment Clause" on the basis of subsequent cases.
Feel free to look through this if you like. 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ft...abinto.htm





The purpose of the militia crack in the 2d amendment has, sadly, to do with slavery.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890...ve-slavery

the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone."
So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias. 
His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "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 [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government.  So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait, I thought the intentions of the Founding Fathers were always perfectly clear, Min.

[tjakey]

I don't think we give the authors of the Constitution enough credit, and I think they might have given us too much credit.  These were people living on the breaking crest of the enlightenment.  I suspect they were well aware that the country was going to evolve in ways they could not possibly foresee.  With that in mind they deliberately worded their documents to a) provide the general outline of the free, democratic, self-governing country they were trying to found, b) establish a government with checks and balances on concentrations of power – including federal courts, while c) knowing those documents would have to be interpreted in light of social conditions of which they could not even guess.

From what I have read of their communications they were certainly aware that slavery was going to be an ongoing and bitter point of conflict.  They debated the gun issue, corporate powers, and economic models.  These were people with a radical view of human potential while knowing full well the capacity of human failure, and knew that nothing is stagnant.  I think the very idea that anyone would use their “original intent” as a weapon against progress, civil rights, life, and liberty, would horrify them.

Unfortunately they assumed that the America of 21st century would be as dedicated to enlightenment, liberty, progress, and democracy as they were themselves.  In that they were sadly mistaken.

[Brian37]

Fuck the gun worhipers, Washington had laws passed regulating the size of muskets and musket balls.

Nobody is out to take all guns away for simply saying you don't have the right to drive a monster truck or dragster funny car on a public highway.

No one needs automatic slaughter weapons or high capacity clips to defend themselves. And it is also paranoid bullshit to fear a government which has no political litmus test written into the Constitution to hold office or to serve in the military. Saying we have a gun death problem and a flooded market is not a call for a fascist state.

Humans have rights including the right to vote for regulations, just like we have speed limits in school zones and building codes that limit businesses human capacity.

Regulation is not fascist.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is way past tlme to stop focusing on dodges to our flooded market of guns with "lone wolf", "mental illness" "hate crime" or "domestic terrorist".. …. When are gun makers going to be held responsible for where their products end up?

No other first word country has the amount of gun death.

They already are (which is why manufacturers rarely sell you anything directly, they do so through affiliates).  If Knight armory were to make an illegal sale, it would be -goodnight- for Knight. They have oversight like you wouldn't believe. Citizens aren't, though - and this is why people get their guns person to person (-you- could sell a rifle to a known terrorist, in front of federal authorities, in broad daylight, p2p - and it would be difficult for them to build a case against you), or from a "gun store".  The manufacturers aren't interested in the liability. If you're going to rail against guns and gun manufacturers, at least get to know the business model -a little bit- man.....

In the end, though, I think that what you are hoping for would be a step too far for the law. To punish a manufacturer when someone hit someone else on the head with a baseball bat is absurd. People are creative, you may think that the teddy bears you manufacture are harmless, but someone will, eventually, find a way to do something terrible with them - like dangling them out the open sidedoor of a white van at a 6 year old girl.....

[Minimalist]

Wait, I thought the intentions of the Founding Fathers were always perfectly clear, Min.

They are.  All you have to do is read what THEY wrote.

Blacks are 3/5 of a person...but only for representation.
Women can't vote.
Indians need to be killed.
Only white-propertied males can vote.
The state legislatures pick senators.
The government can't levy direct taxes.
And the only guns they knew about were muskets with bayonets.

Times have changed.

[Brian37]

What is to know about business models? It still amounts to protecting profits and keeping and or expanding your market. Making them isnt even my issue, it is the blind worship of an object and the industry selling fear to obstruct any pragmatic problem solving to reduce gun death.

[The Grand Nudger]

"The industry" that sells fear is not the same that manufacturers the product.  Again, a guy who runs a factory isn't interested in liability, he isn't interested in ad copy.  He runs the factory because there's a solid market for the product which he has to do -nothing- other than make the product to avail himself of.  He checked, before he sunk his capital, to make sure that this was the case.  

Gun shops might "sell fear", a registered dealer might "sell fear", special interest groups might "sell fear".  The factory that makes the guns sells guns.  End of.   Yes, we need to reduce gun violence, and gun related deaths.  We need to do that -without- turning into a different type of dick or tyrant -ourselves-...or else it makes very little difference.

[Brian37]

Bull fucking shit. The makers sell fear which goes onto the shops and onto the buyer.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure Brian, whatever gives you the oomph you need to point the finger?  God forbid we insist on a little personal responsibility for those -actually- responsible.