Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 1 Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

What if we applied NRA logic to the 4th Amendment?

By       Message Lew Weingarth       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   3 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H4 1/23/19

Author 512948
- Advertisement -

What if we applied NRA 2nd Amendment logic to the 4th Amendment?

2nd Amendment - The Right to Bear Arms.

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 NRA ignores that this amendment applies to "a well regulated militia", and only mentions the second half of the one sentence that makes up the amendment. At the time, the USA had no standing army, and had to depend on state militias for military forces. When the US funded a full time military, there was no longer a need to depend on state militias, making this amendment obsolete.

- Advertisement -

The NRA ignores the first half of the sentence, as it the amendment was "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Let's apply similar logic to the 4th Amendment.

4th Amendment - Search and Seizure.

- Advertisement -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What if we ignore the SECOND half of the sentence?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue"

We've just thrown out probable cause and protected every criminal from search warrants.

I think we CAN'T just ignore parts of any sentence we want.

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering with MBA training in international business. 35 years working all over the world. Expert in power plants, energy, oil. I have been to about 150 countries total, spent at least a week in about 110, and (more...)
 

Lew Weingarth Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

What if we applied NRA logic to the 4th Amendment?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

3 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments


Thomas Knapp

Become a Fan
Author 76576
Follow Me on Twitter

(Member since Feb 15, 2012), 8 fans, 364 articles, 589 comments, 1 diaries
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

"The NRA ignores that this amendment applies to 'a well regulated militia'"


The amendment doesn't "apply" to "a well-regulated militia."


The amendment cites the necessity of "a well-regulated militia" as the justification for what comes next -- that "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


Note two things about that second clause:


1) It is a right of the people, not a prerogative or power of the state.


2) There's a period at the end of it.

Submitted on Thursday, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:19:06 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Lew Weingarth

Become a Fan
Author 512948

(Member since Jan 22, 2019), 1 articles, 2 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to Thomas Knapp:   New Content

The wording of the second Amendment, and the grammatical context, are both clear. Again, you can't arbitrarily claim that one half of a sentence simply does not apply.


Gun ownership is an entirely different discussion (than an Amendment that was obsolete as it passed and the Founding Fathers discussed removing, but left in place because they could see no harm leaving it.


Had anyone suggested that some, ANY, restriction be placed on gun ownership, the Founding Fathers would have demurred. At that time pretty much every citizen living outside major cities HAD to own a hunting rifle. However, they were black powder muzzle loading rifles.

Had anyone suggested to our Founding Fathers that the USA should protect the rights of foreign terrorist, lunatics, and pretty much anyone with money to purchase weapons that are ONLY useable for massive rapid slaughter, the Founding Fathers would have been just as shocked as an argument for no guns.


Now on to gun CONTROL. It's been ruled upon many times, and the effectiveness of controlling weapons in crowded society has been proven thousands of times all over the planet for at least 8,000 years that we have records [of].


Arguing that the way to reduce gun deaths is putting more and faster and deadlier guns into the hands of ANYONE, is as ludicrous as the those who have argued AGW is a fantasy, FOR 50 YEARS - since AGW was proven beyond argument 50 years ago.

Submitted on Thursday, Jan 24, 2019 at 3:54:19 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Becky Comstock

Become a Fan
Author 512956

(Member since Jan 23, 2019), 5 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

But you missed the word "unreasonable" in the first part of the provision. In other words, unless the state has a valid reason for violating your privacy, said privacy may not be violated. The second part goes into more detail regarding this, saying that a right to search you or your house doesn't automatically extend to searching your wife and kids, or your vacation cabin.

I don't think the two amendments are really comparable in the way you're attempting. Both are rather clear in their meaning and intent.

Also, consider the 44 state constitutional provisions regarding the individual right to bear arms, most of which were adopted upon achieving statehood, and after a federal standing army was adopted. Most focus on self defense, while some mention self defense and defense of the state. Obviously they looked to the Federal 2nd amendment for guidance, which they interpreted to mean that individuals had an overarching right to bear arms, and not just for the one justification put forth in the first portion.

Note that most also provide for the ability of the state to regulate/restrict the right to some degree, as in speech.

Submitted on Monday, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:12:35 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment