Category: Barry Lyga

1st AMENDMENT DISPROVES 2nd AMENDMENT ABSOLUTISM

Cliven Bundy Ranch militia lunatics

Back to Barry Lyga and the barefaced fact that the history of the revisionism of the 1st Amendment proves without a doubt that the 2nd Amendment is not absolutist in its words or meaning. Just reading it alone illustrates how out of date the concept is:

2nd: “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.”

Most of the militias around these days, or patriot movements as they are also called, are those like the wackos in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, plus the fringes like Cliven Bundy in Nevada. All of them a bunch of crackpots that feed on those who worship the 2nd Amendment. In other words, outdated legislation. So how does the 1st Amendment shed doubt on the 2nd?

1st: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

First of all, there is nothing out of date, which might speak to the fact that the 1st Amendment has seen so many abridgements. Lyga says: “We have freedom of speech, yes, but we have still decided — as a society — that certain kinds of speech are illegal. For example, libel/slander are actionable. Speech, right? But illegal and punishable.” In addition there’s perjury and you can’t lie under oath or  try to download child pornography. If you can amend so many aspects of the 1st, how can the 2nd possibly be a sacred document that cannot be touched?

Are the conservatives on the Supreme Court completely devoid of common sense, or is this just their ploy to cater to the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby? And why hasn’t one of the gun advocate groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence taken this premise to court as a matter of precedent?

But then, maybe we should just repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Still more to come.

IS THERE A 2ND AMENDMENT LOOPHOLE?

Dictionary.com defines loophole as, “a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc. The gun show loophole is a perfect example in the world of weapons rights. What we are dealing with for the 2nd Amendment is the fact that the National Rifle Assn., led by wacky Wayne LaPierre, holds it so absolute that there can be no change. Just some slight modification like making universal background checks mandatory. No, says wacky Wayne, it takes away the rights of gun owners, which kind of indicates to me some of his NRA members couldn’t pass background checks.

In fact, 74% of NRA members support background checks so that would indicate that wacky Wayne LaPierre doesn’t represent his membership, rather a gun industry vehemently against it. Yes, and 89% of the American public supports background checks so why can’t we get it done? Because the NRA’s gun lobby fills the pockets of Congress, thus, their complete hands off the issue. Okay, we can’t get Washington to do anything, and many states like Arizona and Florida give guns to just a warm body, so we have to find the loophole in the 2nd Amendment. Someone with a good enough legal mind to bring this outdated legislation forward to the 21st Century.

Gun nuts will think I’m crazy and actually that’s a compliment coming from them, but I am perfectly serious about this venture. Hopefully it will encourage others out there to take up the crusade, write about it, and with enough networking get a forum to revise or appeal the Constitutional Amendment that is being used by wacky Wayne LaPierre to allow the slaughter of school children and other innocent people. To start the ball rolling I am opening a debate that has been going on for several years comparing the 2nd Amendment to the 1st Amendment. The premise is that, if the 1st can be interpreted with certain parts being changed to fit the situation, why can’t it also be done with the 2nd?

As an example, in the First, we have freedom of speech but can’t commit libel or slander, same for perjury, or download child pornography. In other words there are corrective mechanisms, even to Amendments to the Constitution. I urge you to read an article by Barry Lyga that takes this very approach into consideration.

This my first post on this subject with more to come.