Episode-1051- Listener Feedback for 1-7-13
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (18.6MB)
It’s the first show of the new year and time for another round of you your feedback, questions and commentary sent to jack at thesurvivalpodcast.com.
Make sure if you submit content for a feedback show that you put something like “comment for jack”, “question for jack” or “article for jack” in the subject line to assure proper identification for my screening process.
Today mostly discuss gun rights and pending gun legislation including the exact type of law I warned you about. We also discuss making decisions as a young adult about education and career, success stories about armed citizens defending themselves and others and more.
Please understand I receive several hundred emails a day and can’t get them all on the air. I do put out a lot of information on Facebook from emails that I can’t fit on the program though so keep em coming.
Join Me Today As I Respond to Your Emails On
- Why you should oppose an “assault weapons ban” even if you don’t own any
- I told you so called “common sense” gun laws were on the way, here comes one
- What exactly does “arms” mean in the second amendment
- The three primary purposes of the second amendment as it relates to individual citizens
- Two success stories of citizens defending themselves the media won’t talk about
- Thoughts for young people considering college or any next step
- The results when you take a non shooter to the gun range a real world report
- A modern lesson on keeping your powder dry
- 401Ks just got easier to convert to a ROTH account, why it matters
- The economy is on life support and the life support is running on back up power
Resources for Today’s Show…
- Members Support Brigade
- Join Our Forum
- TSP Copper
- TSP Gear
- Back Yard Food Production – (sponsor of the day)
- JM Bullion – (sponsor of the day)
- Win Free Tickets to the 2013 Liberty Forum
- HR 6725 – So Called Common Sense Gun Legislation
- The So Called NRA Members Gun Safety Act – can anyone confirm or deny official NRA sanctioning of this bill?
- San Antonio Off Duty Officer Stops A Theater Shooting
- Snopes Confirms the San Antino Shooting Details and Media Ignoring It
- Loganville Mother Shoots Intruder 5 Times, He Drives Away After That
- More savers can convert to Roth 401(k)s under fiscal cliff deal
- Government Dependents Outnumber Those With Private Sector Jobs In 11 U.S. States
Remember to comment, chime in and tell us your thoughts, this podcast is one man’s opinion, not a lecture or sermon. Also please enter our listener appreciation contest and help spread the word about our show. Also remember you can call in your questions and comments to 866-65-THINK and you might hear yourself on the air.
The more insidious part of HR 6725 is by giving guidance on concealed carry it would also give the feds a toehold on regulating further it in the future.
One thing I left out and have to do a follow up on this week is the terror watch list provision. The problem there is anyone an be put on the list with no recourse and no explanation.
I couldn’t agree more with you Jack about being factual when it comes to defending second amendment rights. Every conversation I have with an anti-gunner I follow up with citations (whether on the spot or most often by email) to back up my statements. I despise people who argue off the cuff with emotion and are not able to back it up with data, I’ve determined never to do the same.
For the guy that was having trouble deciding whether or not to go to college for a 4-year program. Seriously consider Jack’s comments about community college. I have an engineering degree for which the first two years I went to my local community college, this ended up being one of the best decisions I made for my higher level education and indirectly my future career. I found the caliber of student that transferred from my community college into my local 4-year university (think $30k/year school known for engineering and science) to be much better than the students that started as a freshman in the 4-year school. I would spend a lot of time with these students reviewing fundamental math and physics which they should have learned either in high school or freshman year in college. Remember that four year universities spend a lot of time on research, for your lower level courses will at many times be taught by teacher’s assistant’s/grad students; they could give a shit about you, most of them are doing it because they have to and not because teaching is their passion. At my community college I always had access to my professors and they taught all the classes themselves, always.
Let me also give you a different spin on this. There were a couple guys in my engineering sciences program at the community college I went to that already finished a 2-year electronics degree. They were typically the better students in class and by far the best in the lab sessions since their electronics degree is very hands on practical vs typical engineering degree which covers more theory. Since these guys already had their 2-year electronics degree they had jobs in the electronics field so, relative to most other students, they had a substantial income while going to school…..in fact some of them were being sent to finish their engineering degree and their company was paying for the tuition! At a community college I believe (at least for technical trades) that, relative to a sophomore at a 4-year university, you have a much better chance of coming out after two years with a skill set that’s employable.
Look my friend, I almost didn’t finish high school due to bad grades resulting from lack of interest. I decided to try engineering using the low cost approach: community college. I found my passion there and excelled at that school, the following four year university and my following employment as an engineer. By my mid 20’s I was making a six figure salary and already had several patents to my name. Please don’t read this as bragging, it’s not, I’m just trying to make the point that it’s about you, your desires and passion and your ability to transmute those into something tangible. Don’t let anyone tell you that you need a 4-year education to make that happen and don’t think that a community college is a place for those who didn’t make the cut for 4-year universities, it’s a low dollar way to discover your unknown abilities.
@NotoriousAPP sounds like he should ignore some of my comments about community college then? Your perspective is very interesting and I value it more then my opinion because all I have is 3rd party accounts.
Due to poor grades, I barely graduated high school. I attended community college and transferred to Fresno State with a 3.8 GPA. The best instruction I ever got from from a CC.
I graduated cum laude from Fresno with a BS in chemistry and minors in math, physics, and biology. I was then accepted to UCLA and got both an MS and Ph.D. in chemical engineering. I was a professor of physical chemistry (quantum dynamics and thermodynamics) for a couple of years before going back to teaching at a CC.
Everything the previous poster said about CCs is true.
I have a hard time with this argument. I transferred to 3 different state schools in KS and had difficulties with transfer credits in each case. I wasn’t happy with my school or education until I got to K-state. No it is not in the same context of community college to state school, but I transferred from state school to state school and saw nothing but problems with the transfer credits. If you are looking to do that you should definitely check the transfer acceptance to the school you ultimately want to go to.
The idea of saving money on education and deciding if you really want to go to school makes great sense, and on paper works, but I would caution that you may hate one school and by going to another really like school.
Also if you are planning on engineering, plan on 5 years in school. I can count on 1 hand then number of people I know that graduated in 4 years with an engineering degree. At best, you do graduate in 4 years, but are prepared for 5.
I will be advising my children to start at a community college and then transfer to a 4 year university. I have a 4 year degree. Every adult in my family, both blood and in-law, have 4 or 6 year degrees. Despite this I have serious reservations on the future cost of education. At the current run rate my children will cost half a million dollars to go to school. Hopefully tuition will have its correction by that point.
Obviously I can only speak for my experience at my community college but I have met other very successful people in my field who also went to community college or never went to college and are doing quite well. Again, I believe it’s mostly about the individual and their ability to align their skills with their passion.
Anti-gun people who know nothing about firearms trying to legislate gun control is akin to having the Amish decide traffic laws for automobiles.
Jack, I caught part of the Dennis Prager show today. Dennis had a guest host who interviewed an Arizonan Sheriff Richard Mack. Sheriff Mack sued the federal government over the Brady Bill, and the lawsuit went to the Supreme Court. Mack won the decision. (I’m sure you know him since he’s with oath keepers).
What Sheriff Mack was saying on the show today was that the Court decision didn’t just apply to gun control but to other areas of federal encroachments.
YouTube video of Mack:
Engineering, my 3 oldest sons have engineering degrees. First one software engineering and was working on a masters in computer science. As he was doing all kinds of cool stuff on the side, a recognized expert in his field, he decided to not finish his masters.
2nd one has a degree in electrical engineering and just finished a masters in computer science.
3rd one has a degree in mechanical engineering and his masters is focusing on robotics, he is finishing up his thesis, was going for his PhD but decided he has all the classes he wanted to take and wants to be out making/designing stuff.
4th son had fun with college life, started into engineering and realized that was not what he wanted to do. He is currently doing volunteer work for a few more months, then working and possibly back to college if he finds what it is he wants to do.
3rd on will have paid all his expenses on his own and graduate with cash in the bank and no loans. All are great students, ACT scores in the 30’s. But the one who went to a 4 year engineering university in a nearby state from the start is the only one which could do so.
All had scholarships of some kind right out of high school, but they don’t transfer to other schools, and it is hard to get one as a transfer student. Even if your classes transfer, most engineering schools want you to take their classes and it will likely take you longer.
Check out the university you choose, scholarships at a university should be first choice if working on a degree.
Some universities focus on hands on projects more than books and lectures, if your first class has you buy a robot kit instead of a book, that is a good thing. Some high schools better prepare their students for college than others. Ours offers engineering classes starting in middle school.
Seems to be a shortage of engineers, students who are independent thinkers. Some are very good at following directions, working on a group project. But those who come up with new ideas, better ways of doing things are always in demand.
Military often offers deals for those who join and get engineering degrees although none of my sons went that route.
Some of my kids have done better far away from home than others, big difference between a couple hundred miles away and a couple thousand.
I think all kids should be out on their own before getting married, before starting their career, etc.
I am afraid of guns…but own them and respect the rights of owners.
The 2nd Amendment wasn’t put in for hunters, (as is often supposed) it was put in so we could defend ourselves against tyranny and evil governments and so that we could fight tyranny equally armed.
I just had a podcast covering many of the same things. Keep the fight alive, Jack.
Folks – – HR 6725 died on Dec 31, 2012. Don’t strain you milk over HR 6725 anymore. Go to http://www.popvox.com. There you can keep up with all current federal legislation. Sign up and voice your opinion on any and all bills currently being considered in both the House and Senate.
It looks like it was re-introduced as H.R. 21.
It was and I think many are missing the point, I held this up as an example of what is going to be proposed not an individual threat.
That’s why I suggested and subscribe to POPVOX alerts. To keep up with what the congress critters are doing.
Here is an interesting link about the Sandy Hook shooting and the media frenzy of inaccurate reporting. A rifle was not involved in the shooting.
You’re linking to one of the many mistaken reports from the day of the attack.
We now know that he definitely used the rifle.
Opps, sorry didn’t catch the date of the video I linked to. Where can I find the information you got confirming a rifle was used? There has been such a media circus over this hard to keep it straight.
Yes HR 6725 was reintroduced as HR21 that is why I think it is important to follow POPVOX and get their alerts.. The congress critters introduce so much hard t keep up with. You gotta try though.
Wikipedia should have the updated info. It’s just amazing how much bad info has been released on this story.
I don’t have anything to add. Just wanted to drop by and tell you that I really enjoyed the show today.
Regarding a degree in Engineering. I got a BS in Eng from Texas A&M over 20 yrs ago and now my son plans on doing the same. I just checked and the degree plan looks the same. I did go to Jr/Community college for 2 yrs before entering the 4 yr degree. The degree I took required (132 hrs) with some courses having pre-reqs, so really it is more or you must have done the course work in highschool.
#1 What I did wrong. I took classes that (a) did not transfer & (b) did not apply to the degree plan. I ended up with 186 hrs of classes (6 yrs).
Make sure you don’t waste time with taking courses that don’t apply to the degree you want.
#2 What I did right. I took my hard course work in jr college, and only the hrs transferred, not the grade. Take the “weed out” courses in jr/community college. MAKE SURE THEY TRANSFER & APPLY to degree. Freshman MATH & Science classes are good choices to take.
Science LAB fees a lot cheaper in Jr college.
My suggestion for my son is go to Blinn Jr for 1 yr (3o hrs) before Texas A&M. Prove yourself there, apply to A&M, then take a semester off & work before starting remaining 3 yrs. Really 3.5 yrs with a max of 15hrs a semester….don’t kill yourself.
Under Alaska state law, all able bodied citizens not in the military are part of the unorganized militia and can be called on by the governor to defend the state. I would assume that over states have similar laws on the books.
AS 26.05.010. Alaska Militia Established.
(a) The militia of the state consists of all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who reside in the state, who are at least 17 years of age, and who are eligible for military service under the laws of the United States or this state.
(b) The militia is divided into two classes:
(1) the organized militia, consisting of the Alaska National Guard, the Alaska Naval Militia, and the Alaska State Defense Force; and
(2) the unorganized militia, consisting of all qualified persons available for service but not serving in the organized militia.
(c) The adjutant general may, by regulation, prescribe the maximum age for eligibility in the militia.
AS 26.05.110. Governor May Order Unorganized Militia Into Active Service.
In the event of imminent invasion by a foreign power and for the same reasons set forth in AS 26.05.070 , if the governor has ordered into active service all of the available organized militia or if the organized militia is in active federal service, the governor may order the unorganized militia or any portion of it considered necessary into active service, and have them perform military duty for the state subject to this chapter, as the circumstances require.
The problem laid out in this argument about “common sense, reasonable” gun control is that the whole wording is a political ruse used by the media, whether it’s Fox News or CNN. These gun grabbers want complete gun bans of all firearms. Jack makes a great explanation how single shot ARs used today are not the ones used by the military with selective fire. The gun grabbers claim only military should only possess civilian style ARs.
The Colorado shooter bought all his guns through a background check. The background check does not evaluate the current state of the mind of the purchaser. The Sandy Hook coward stole guns from an irresponsible gun owner who did not secure her guns despite knowing she had a mentally defective grown man in her house. We cannot rely on government to force every owner of a car to be responsible much less a gun owner to be responsible. Just like we cannot rely on government to manage health care.
So mandating back ground checks on private party sales of firearms solves nothing and will not prevent another Sandy Hook.
The true libertarian principals believe in free will and a free society. While I am not an anarchist (yet) there’s simply no such thing as common sense gun control.
Gun control is gun control no matter how you frame it. Gang bangers, criminals, steal guns from law abiding owners. You can’t remove the billions of semi-auto rifles M4s from every home in America just like the hot guns in use by career criminals on the streets. Therefore, gun control and background checks will always fail to stop every bad person from committing crimes with guns against law abiding citizens.
The NRA fought libertarians like Rand Paul who warned names of registered gun owners would one day be leaked out in public. Paul proposed legislation to protect gun owners from being listed by provisions in the Patriot Act.
I am saving up to join the GOA, Gun Owners of America, for a lifetime membership because they truly understand the militia and what “Shall not Be Infringed” means.
The Supreme Court is an illegitimate body, nothing in the Constitution gives the SCOTUS the authority it exercises today. The second amendment is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, if any SCOTUS decision is ever made and it conflicts with the Constitution, we the people need to disregard and nullify unconstitutional laws.
Great show, Jack!
I want to share my experience of showing “good cause” to the state when applying for a concealed carry permit. I have carry permits in both Washington State and Oregon. Since I reside in Washington State, I was required by Oregon to provide a letter stating my “good cause” for wanting a permit. Just like you, my reason is to protect myself and my family. I work in Oregon, and many of my family members live there as well; so, I’m in Oregon often. This reason was good enough for them, apparently, and I was allowed an appointment to turn in my application and have my fingerprints taken at the Sheriff’s office.
I agree that having such a clause gives individual states too much power in deciding to whom they will issue permits. Fortunately for me, Oregon was reasonable in this case, even though I live in SW Washington.
The states seem to have this power anyway, this law would require that they exercise it. I find it unconstitutional but we both know that doesn’t seem to matter to our government much any more.
I went through the same process between WA and OR. As a member of the Oregon Air National Guard, I did not encounter any problem even in Multnomah County (Portland).
However, I have definitely heard stories that illustrate the basic problem… Inconsistent standards of enforcement. This is even more of an issue in, say, California, which is also “shall issue” but really in fact not that often.
You mentioned the Dick Act a couple times, but you never elaborated on it. I did some looking and found some info. So I (male between the ages of 18 and 45) have the right to buy any firearm and in any quantity that I desire and can afford. What else does that Act say in a way that the average Joe will understand? How does that affect a female or an older than 45 person? How much of the Act is applicable today, in other words, how much have they not legislated away? Thanks for any info.
I am reaching out to Steward Rhodes about this. This act matters but there is a TON of false information as far as I can see about it on out side. As I have dug deeper I have become concered I might make that worse, so I am going to try to get a mini interview with Rhodes (who is a constitutional scholar and a man I consider to be an expert on the topic of the militia) about it.
Thank you. That is the perfect answer that I have come to expect from you. Your integrity is something most people should aspire to. I appreciate it and will wait patiently to find out what Mr. Rhodes has to say. Thank you for being you.
State of Oregon, under title 32 chapter 396.105 (3): The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the state between the ages of 18 and 45 who are not serving in any force of the organized militia or who are not on the state retired list and who are or who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States; subject, however, to such exemptions from military duty as are created by the laws of the United States.
On your idea about YouTube videos going over successful defensive gun uses, I think that would be useful. No affiliation other that listener / reader, but there is a podcast and a blog that regularly share recent news stories of DGUs: The Truth About Guns and The Gun Dudes (they are big fans of the TSP!). Not aware of a YT outlet for this information, so it would be another good way to get the word out.
RE: Community college advise to prospective engineering student:
There is nothing inferior about going to a CC for the first two years of engineering, especially for taking care of differential, integral and multivariable calculus plus linear algebra and if possible differential equations. Physics and some other basics can also be taken at the CC. You are right that the level of difficulty in a 4 year university is more than at a community college and at first it feels like jumping into a frozen lake when you transfer. However, the level of difficulty at a 4 year universities, especially those with prestigious reputations in a field, is due to weed out classes like the basic engineering math that are made unnecessarily hard to thin out the students in the major. Also, a lot of these courses are taught by graduate student TAs with horrible accents and/or poor teaching skills and in classrooms easily exceeding 50 people. It is best to take the basics at a small CC and ask a lot of questions and get involved with faculty– usually doctors and masters with lots of years of experience. That was my experience, albeit in a different major but in a 50,000 plus student university.
Community college vs. 4 yr collage:
Even if you know what you want to do, ie. engineering degree this does not mean you can easily get accepted into a 4 yr college. I have seen people go in as major “undeclared” thinking they will transfer to engineering. This can prove to be difficult.
For me I got very lucky….
In high school very little motivation on grades.
Always had a job, made journeymen clerk in grocery store by 20 making good money.
In the mean time, at a community college, I continued to not care about school.
Acedemic Probation twice, disqualified from the school once.
Took auto shop twice, first time got a “c”, second time got a “d” because I didn’t show up to the final. (This really pissed off the teacher, I just wanted to use the shop).
Then I was realizing I made the same money as co-workers who were there for 30 years, and how repetitive the job was so I decided to take a single class I liked, math. Yes I did always like math, this time I was up to Calculus.
Also this time I met a cute girl and learned to study together, got an “A”, for the first time. This girl really taught me how to study, and I taught her the material.
From there I realized I really liked math and computers so engineering was it.
It turned out I got good grades on the real transferable classes, math, physics ect.
I believe the UC (University of California) schools like to bring students with 2 years under their belt for a couple reasons: The students are running out of classes in CC, they have proven more seriousness, are more mature and the UC school can graduate more students.
This was lucky for me, I ended up with an EECS degree from UC Berkeley which turned out to be the only school I could commute to. I had no idea how good a school Cal was, again very lucky.
Now in Silicon Valley, it has been a fun ride.
It troubles me deeply how this particularly story has been all but swept under the rug, with most media sources now focusing only upon the murders and not the valor of the security guard featured above, Stefan Walton. Although he saved any number of lives, after it was discovered that he was not authorized to carry a gun at work, I have seen the news downplay what he did in virtually every story thereafter (just Google Old Sacramento shooting). One thing that is especially noteworthy is that although there were literally hundreds of extra police in the streets outside, on account of it being New Year’s Eve, a single armed citizen was what it took to stop a bad guy from killing more people.
On Monday I shook Stefan Walton’s hand at my good friend Daniel Ferrier’s memorial service, following a seven gun salute in his honor (as an Iraq War army veteran). We were both too emotional to talk, but I managed to thank Stefan for what he did, before he made his way over to Dan’s brother to apologize for not doing more.
@ Modern Survival, I agree with you that there needs to be a choice at the state level on the possible restriction for firearms and the opportunity to vote with your feet & wallet
One of the major reasons I left CA was the Roberti-Roos “Assault Weapons Ban” that was enacted there. My feelings are that if politicians do not trust me with my guns, I will not trust them with my tax dollars (not that I trust any poli-squish-em to any extent). If more rights advocates could do similar, states like CA & NY would collapse from their own ineptitude due to overwhelming loss of tax receipts. That’s the ONLY weapon statists really fear – loss of incoming funds.
I don’t think you need to convert your entire IRA to a Roth. With a little bit of planning you can convert only part of your IRA to a Roth per year.
Convert only enough to keep you from going into the next tax bracket. For large IRAs, do this several years in a row until its completely converted.
How can an executive action by the president be used for gun control? By a president who is glad his daughters will be surrounded by “men with guns” when they start dating.
To provide some feedback- No, the NRA isn’t supporting the “NRA Members” bill. Here’s the quote from the representative when it was introduced back in December:
“The NRA as an organization is out of step with its membership on many commonsense gun safety measures. Polling shows nearly two-thirds of NRA members support the five simple ways to improve gun safety included in this bill,”
“The NRA’s absolutist position on gun issues is an impediment to the safety and security of the public. This legislation is designed to highlight that schism, offering popular proposals even NRA members support to prevent more gun-related tragedies.”
Great show so far, I’m halfway through.
Question: Some of my liberal gun grabber-type acquaintances point out this part of the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary…” with emphasis on *well regulated*. They argue that that means though the ultimate right can’t be infringed, it can be micro-managed down to oblivion, as we see in the Feinstein bill related to particular guns, magazine size, etc. that can be ‘forbidden’ as part of ‘regulation’ without infringing on the right.
My understanding of what the Founders intended by ‘well regulated’ was not the 20th/21st century meaning of the word ‘regulation’ as in (stupid overbearing) government rules, but rather more closer in meaning to what we would say as “well equipped”.
Any thoughts on this?
Also, I’m wondering at a higher level what constitutional authority the federal government has to ban mere individual possession of anything – not just guns or weapons – but drugs? alcohol? beanie babies? animals? Whatever. What gives them any authority to make possession of *anything* illegal? Is that yet another liberal stretch of the meaning of the “promote the common welfare” clause?
I live not far from Loganville, GA where the home invasion you mentioned took place. The invader was armed with a crowbar and broke through three locked doors to get to the woman and her children. I don’t think he was there just for a burglary. Good thing she was armed.
He had been confronted in front of another home in another neighborhood earlier in the day by a woman. Apparently, he wasn’t going to be stopped again.
To put the preamble of the 2A in context is means that whenever lawful authority needed to call up the militia, the people would go home and get the weapons they *already had* and show up to form the militia. (The militia and the army were different and treated differently in the Constitution.)
The Founding Fathers expected that our rights would be protected in a *meaningful way*. Just as our rights of free speech, freedom of religion, fair trial, etc were all meant to be protected in a *meaningful way.* Regulating them into oblivion means the right was not meaningfully protected.
@Jarrod I agree, don’t get me wrong – what I’m looking for is a solid argument to give back at my liberal “friends” who think a “well regulated militia” means they can pass whatever bans they want to as long as you still can have a Red Ryder BB Gun. 😉
The answer is simple,
It doesn’t matter what the founders used to justify the second amendment, it still applies to the people as individuals and can’t be changed without a 2/3ds vote of the states via the amendment process.
If they want to know who said that, the answer is the US Supreme Court. If they point out it was a 5-4 decision just point out so was their beloved Obamacare. Then stop pushing a string and wasting your time with people that are not going to listen to what you say anyway.
But Jack, the amendment itself says “well regulated”. The founders themselves wrote that. So I don’t understand how you’ve gotten past that with that you said. How *specifically* do you get past the “well regulated” part? Again, please understand I’m asking cuz I’m dealing with douchebags – you’re not trying to convince me, you’re trying to convince Ma & Pa Asleep At Wheel America.
And I agree, I could stop pushing on a string. Except these douchebags vote. And I’m (regrettably) in a swing state that has elected Harry Reid for ungodly number of terms because of said douchebags. Jesus F’in Christ…
Hell you should be sending Reid a thank you card for at least putting a speed bump in the road to a ban in of all things Obamacare! This of course while JOHN MCCAIN is screwing us right now trying to pass laws to make getting a ban bill out of the senate easier to do.
Awesome – thanks for the reply Cutlass. I agree with you completely.
Now my other question:
What gives the feds authority to restrict *mere possession* of anything? Not just guns, but anything?
Clearly during prohibition, if the booze grabbers thought they could, they’d just have passed a law. But they went to all the trouble to get an Amendment banning booze.
So if they knew (IMHO correctly) that the feds can’t ban *anything*, and they went to the avenue of an Amendment, why can the feds ban *anything*? Please advise. Thanks.
The most relevant part, as Jack eloquently explain on the show, is that the amendment says “the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed,” which is pretty explicit, regardless of the meaning of the clause that comes before it. The first clause is simply emphasizing the primary reason for why this right shall not be infringed.
Imagine if the First Amendment had wording like “Vibrant discourse being necessary for the liberty of a free people, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.” Would this mean that laws should be passed to regulate press to make it more vibrant? Some would certainly try to interpret the wording this way, but they’d have to get around that part about “Congress shall make no law” thing.
As for the meaning of “well regulated,” in the 2008 Heller case the Supreme Court agreed that ” ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”
In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton interprets “well regulated” as ensuring that the armed citizens be well trained, and even suggests that the government should provide them with arms.
There are no shortage of sources for the historical context of the 2nd Amendment and the mindset of the Founders towards the fundamental right to self defense. It is one thing to hold the opinion that guns rights are somehow outdated and the 2nd Amendment should be repealed – that would at least be an honest position for a gun grabber. But it is ignorant and/or disingenuous to twist words and ideas to suggest that the framers, in a document written to protect the hard won rights of Independence, intended to put limitations on citizens rights.
Also, keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was included specifically to win over people who still feared the power of a central government and it took almost 2 years of intense debate around the country to ratify the Constitution. Had there been any ambiguity concerning whether the phrase “well-regulated” could conceivably be interpreted to mean the government restricting gun rights there is no way in hell it would have been ratified with that wording.
Another important point. Note that for freedom of speech, etc. it says “Congress shall make no law,” yet for arms it is a blanket “the right … shall not be infringed.” Period. No other right is so forcefully stated as this.
I’d tell your friends to stop playing foolish word games and just admit that the 2nd Amendment is incompatible with their views and intentions. If they don’t like this fundamental right they’d should suck it up, cut the BS and begin the long, grueling process of amending the Constitution. Otherwise, there is a whole world of choices for those interested in being defenseless wards of an over regulated socialist or quasi-socialist state. Why not move to a country more in line with their values and allow us liberty-lovers to exist in the only place where we still have a chance to be left alone?
Well, you and I both know that regulating it into oblivion would mean it was no longer a meaningful right. And we both know the intention and practice of the day was that the 2nd meant the average citizen could have weapons enough to be on par with the average foot soldier.
However, you may want to watch In Search of the Second Amendment at http://youtu.be/0j7h-fdHoYE .
Whether or not they are willing to watch with an open mind will largely be a function of their intellectual honesty.
To be honest, folks who are willing to twist and turn in order to make a Constitutionally protected right become meaningless don’t strike me as intellectually honest.
Jarrod, agreed. These people refuse to subject their views to honest debate. They’d rather confuse the issue and demonize their opponents. It disgusting and, sadly, the average person just swallows their nonsense.
Look at this ridiculous NPR story on the 2nd Amendment:
The Second Amendment: 27 Words, Endless Interpretations
How can something apparently so simple — a 27-word sentence — be so confusing? What is so hard to understand about “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”?
As it turns out, after more than 200 years of intense scrutiny by people more versed in The Law than you and I — and in the face of seemingly endless American gun violence — the meaning of the Second Amendment continues to baffle and elude. In this case, the country’s Founders have left us to founder.
It’s only baffling if you simply refuse to accept that the 2nd Amendment is one part of the Constitution that won’t bend to your revisionist interpretation. Note that these people don’t say that the Commerce Clause is “baffling.” That’s because, at least in terms of language, those other clauses are vague enough to re-interpret. However, if you take something like the 2nd Amendment and just repeat over and over that it’s “confusing” and “controversial” and “open to interpretation” you eventually establish that it is extremist and ideological to simply read the words for what they say.
About 2/3 of the way through the show now… lol… I can advise, as a holder of a MS degree in engineering that Jack’s thoughts are pretty spot on to what I would advise.
Couple things I’d suggest additionally:
1) Rather than going to a community college the first two years, go to a state university the first two years. Jack is spot on that it will be hard mentally & work-wise to transfer from a 2 year CC to a 4 year Uni, but start at a state Uni for the first 2 years. If you can & want to finish the 4 years at the state Uni, fine (see point 2), but if not, transfer to a “higher ranked school” for the last two and it won’t be as much of a problem.
2) In engineering, the prestige of the school is not the critical. I went to a private school for undergrad, but it was by no means well known. In grad school I found myself on equal footing with people from Brown, Harvard, Yale, etc. I was just as smart as them, and now in the real world, employers don’t care about the name of the school, they care about what you can do. Do not pay a shitload more just for a name – it’s not worth it.
3) It’s hard work, but if you want to be an engineer, it’s worth it & needed. US engineers are worlds above any foreign competition. That’s not to say companies never hire the foreigners on the cheap, but if they do, they are going to get cookie cutter robots who do not think outside of the box.
4) Blend. Companies today may take a generic engineer, but they’ll get excited over an engineer who also has a background in biology, for example. Or genetics. Or finance (if you want to move up the business ladder). Or that can speak Russian or Portuguese. Realize that the people who make the big bucks today & are in big demand are masters of more than one discipline – so don’t skimp on your minor and choose “basket weaving” – make it count.
My sons have found by getting their masters at a different university than their bachelor’s it opens more connections. And their masters has a different focus than their BS. Electrical engineering and masters computer science. BS mechanical engineering and master’s with a robotics focus.
Do as many internships as possible, esp in the summer. Nasa has some great ones even if they aren’t hiring it looks great on a resume. Lab instructors, research assistants are both great ways to fund graduate school. Various small companies funded by research grants surround many universities, another place for experience and pay while going through school. Although a royal pain, you can also get your own grant for a research project.
Many neighboring states have waived out of state fees, they are less expensive than the Texas schools. Like my daughter’s friend who has a full ride scholarship in U of A, which are very hard to get in Texas.
When the booze grabbers in the 30s wanted prohibition, they didn’t just pass a law – they went after an amendment (and somehow passed it) to ban booze. By the same token, mere possession of *anything* – booze, guns, beanie babies, baseball cards, cabbage patch dolls – is NOT something that the federal government can simply ban via any law, because the Constitution does NOT grant the federal government the right to BAN ANYTHING.
Well it isn’t that simple it should be but it isn’t and by the way prohibition was in the 20s.
Where does the constitution give the authority to take over health care to the federal government? Where does it give them the right to collect data on the American people?
Now it doesn’t expressly forbid those as it does banning firearms. However it does forbid warrant-less searches, um have you read the Patriot Act or say the news lately?
Just because it is unconstitutional doesn’t mean they won’t do it and doesn’t mean they won’t get away with it. The people are the final check and right now the people are not doing their job.