We only need 146 more signatures before the petition below will appear publicly on the Whitehouse.gov site. Don’t miss your opportunity to make a difference!
If this petition gets 25,000 signatures by January 23, 2013, the White House will review it and respond!
We the People allows anyone to create and sign petitions asking the Obama Administration to take action on a range of issues. If a petition gets enough support, the Obama Administration will issue an official response.
You can view and sign the petition here:
Here’s some more information about this petition:
Avoid talks with the NRA/GOA who only promote more guns and detract from a real gun reduction solution
It is an assault to the memory of the victims of Sandy Hook to involve the NRA/GOA in any policy debate. Are we so forgetful that we have forgotten the record of the NRA? In 2011, NRA’s La Pierre refused to discuss gun control with Obama stating “Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” The NRA has spent a lifetime promoting gun violence and are responsible for the gun laws that made these mass shootings possible. The NRA Litigated against the Brady Bill which among other things prevented felons and the mentally ill from receiving guns, spent millions and succeeded in getting the court to make background checks voluntary.
Until the 2008 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Helen, most held to a collective rights view of the 2nd amendment. 1 That is, the right to own a gun was not an individual right but a collective one in the context of a militia. This view has gradually been eroded by politically motivated legal “scholars.”2 History matters writes:
“Much Second Amendment scholarship has taken the form of “law office history,” a form of advocacy scholarship designed to influence the way courts decide constitutional questions. Legal scholarship influences the way briefs are written and may also be used by judges when deciding a case. For most historians the goal of scholarship is to reconstruct and understand the complexity of the past, not influence contemporary policy or jurisprudence.”
The mass majority of historians discount the individual rights view and have found serious errors of fact in legal scholars interpretations. 2
2. historymatters.gmu.edu (Search for “2nd amendment” – The Second Amendment Under Fire: The Uses of History and the Politics of Gun Control by Saul Cornell, Associate Professor, Department of History, The Ohio State University)
The following was written by Robert Spitzer of the Washington Post:
Myth: The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.
This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to “suppress Insurrections,” not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV.
Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, thenTimothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a “legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted” because it would “defeat the whole Bill of Rights” — including the Second Amendment.