I will guarantee you that it will not be repealed in my lifetime. Regulated ? Probably needs to be. I think everyone deserves the right to be able to protect themselves. Does everyone have the right to have machine guns ? Maybe not.
If you are a male citizen between the age of 17 and 45 you are a member of the militia, whether you know it or not and whether or not you want to be. Read United States Code, section 246. Militia members have always been expected to bring their own weapon when called up, so arguably every 17-45 male in the US should keep a weapon suitable for militia use at home. What would be the most useful weapon for a militia member? An AR style weapon of course.”
So what does "A well regulated militia . . . etc." mean? And is it a limitation on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or simply an introductory phrase? The Supreme Court recently ruled in the Heller case that the people have a right to bear arms for self defense, independent of any membership in a militia. So the introductory "militia" phrase is not a limitation of the right to keep and bear arms.
"who's the regulator ?" Good question, but irrelevant (see my last comment). Anyway, per the U.S. Code, there are two components to the militia, the organized militia, which are the state National Guards, and the unorganized militia, which is everyone else, between the ages of 17 and 45. The unorganized militia has never been under any kind of "regulation" or control unless called up, which I don't think has happened since the frontier days.
^ My point is simple even though the Supreme Court recognized the right to self defense and self protection, you do not have unlimited rights in this area, and various jurisdictions, have an absolute right to impose "sane" regulation on your right, my contention is this right is limited and those recognized jurisdictions, have the right to be certain that you are fit and able to exercise this right.
^BTW, the regulator is hardly irrelevant sorry to say, that is a very important distinction, and it should be noted that certain jurisdictions requirements of regulations is inherently reasonable, whether you like it or not.
Who the "regulator" of the militia might be is irrelevant because the right to bear arms is not limited to members of the militia, as the Supreme Court ruled in Heller.
"you do not have unlimited rights in this area, and various jurisdictions, have an absolute right to impose "sane" regulation on your right," True, of course. No one has unlimited rights in any area. The typical example being the right to free speech doesn't allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater. If the militia phrase means anything, in my opinion, it means you have the right to bear arms that are suitable for a member of a militia, which is to say personal arms (handguns and rifles). Militia members were not expected to provide crew served weapons, which in the Revolutionary days meant cannons. Today, crew served weapons include things like machineguns and antitank missiles, so no, I agree people don't have the right to "bear" those types of things.
What really irks me is those politicians who claim "I support the Second Amendment. I'm a hunter." The Second Amendment has absolutely zero to do with hunting."
^ As a point of debate we actually agree, my point was there are limits on just about everything, only insane people disagree with that, and yes you can be sane and disagree on where those limits are, as long as you can stipulate that there "are" limits.
The true purpose of the Second Amendment, like it or not, is to give the People the means to overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical, like the writers of the Second Amendment had just done. If you don't like it, work to repeal it. Good luck with that.
I own rifles, pistols and shotguns. I have a concealed pistol permit, and when I'm out and about I'm usually carrying my Sig Sauer automatic or my S&W revolver.
Because while you might get a majority of the people to vote to repeal it, you will never get 2/3 of the states. It’s hard to conceive of any amendments/changes to the constitution going forward. Maybe the ERA. The minority position is effectively permanently entrained in the constitution.
So why don’t anti-second amendment people mention it? Because it’s a one sentence “discussion.” Ain’t happening.
America was never intended to be a 50% + 1 vote majoritarian dictatorship. There are enough supermajoritarian provisions within the Constitution, as well as the difficulty in amending it, to make that judgment.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Get it?
The United States had just fought a war against one of the world's most powerful military's, and WON, to free themselves from the tyranny of the British!
If you don't grasp why our Founders included the 2nd Amendment, then you need to educate yourself. It damn sure wasn't to go deer hunting!
If an explicit amendment to the Constitution can be limited then the idea that the fake right of aboertion cannot be limited and is up to "the woman and her doctor" is simply wrong. A Federal Law banning all abortions at a certain point is absolutely justified. By the way "well-regulated" specifically does not include the Federal Government, or else it would be in there. Miltias bu their nature are outside of Government control and self-regulate. Just ask Mel Gibson: "You are free to leave, but if you choose to stay , you will follow my orders, or I will have you shot".
ski,
You mention "the woman and her doctor". That has always bothered me. Other than Mary, can anyone name a woman that became pregnant WITHOUT a man? The baby is as much his as it is the woman's. What happened to his rights?
@tetra “ America was never intended to be a 50% + 1 vote majoritarian dictatorship. There are enough supermajoritarian provisions within the Constitution, as well as the difficulty in amending it, to make that judgment.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Get it?”
This is like a whine festival, who's actually trying to take away America's guns ?
I'm pro second amendment, just to make that point, it is an amendment not one of the original articles of the constitution, it was added in 1791 well after the Revolutionary war ended, in 1783, and it was intended as a protection of citizens to keep a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self protection, as far as protection against tyranny it's purpose is dubious at best, after all one man's tyrant is another man's freedom fighter, you can debate this all you like truth is in today's charged political atmosphere you won't get a consensus on damn near anything.
Give me an actual example of a citizen or group of citizens in the modern era forcing a governmental change in these United States. This is just a bogus issue, no one is trying to take anybodies guns away, unless there is a legitimate reason, and yeah as both doc, and I have established there is a genuine need for common sense regulation, and no I don't trust you (collective you) to always do the right thing.
Your post immediately followed mine and ended with a “got it?” and I took it as you lecturing me. I own guns, am not in the NRA and despise The Orange Man, so that makes me a librul around here and I expect contrary posts. No worries. Carry on.
PS - I like tits too, so I’m guessing we have that in common.
@Tetradon, you did a good job of proving my point, applause line my ass, there are some folks that should not be allowed to own firearms, just as there are some firearms that have no use in our society. That;s not an applause line that is a fact.
You sure got the NRA's boogey men of the week down pat, but there isn't any group with the ability to take the guns away, maybe you watch too much NRA TV or some such nonsense, but for real it ain't happening.
@twentyfive, I'm not even saying I'm against all regulations, not where they keep the framers' interpretation and prohibit something that causes disproportionate damage (like grenade launchers). The majority opinion in Heller allows for some regulation. But I get irked when I hear "spin" lines, like "gun control" being called "gun safety," or "common sense," which applies if you don't agree with it you're a moron or mentally incompetent.
^That's your opinion, (intentional snark)) mine is gearing towards a consensus, your side is trying to block all discussion and actively trying to avoid a consensus, along with doing the same thing over and over is just insanity, where as my side is trying different things, maybe if your side would try some different things the results might change.
^Damn Tetra those muskets didn't cause one tenth of one percent of the mayhem as the ARs do today.
If everyone had muskets there wouldn't be a conversation.
Again you provide no definition of "common sense." Only "that which I'm scared of." I can point to jurisprudence supporting my views, can you?
Actually, the "pro-gun" side (which regards me as a heretic) has provided a lot of ideas, off the top of my head, going after straw purchasers and those who sell to them, interventions for individuals at high risk (which would have stopped the Parkland shooter among others), enforcement of the laws on the books, teaching firearms safety.
You don't get points for good intentions. Try things that work, not just "ban that which sends a chill up my spine."
You are misinformed the pro gun lobbies led by the NRA, keeps fighting those trying to close the loopholes that allow the straw man purchases, the pro gun side are the folks objecting to background checks which might have prevented the parkland shooter from making his purchase, let your side stop trying to block the gun-show loop hole and background checks, I'm all for the intervention laws that have been proposed, why is it so hard to get them passed (hint, the NRA opposes them) how about limiting magazine sizes why the fuck does anyone not in a war zone need 50 and hundred bullet magazines, you have any common sense issues with any of this, well the NRA and their lobbyists fund raise on these very issues.
I am beginning the application process for a concealed carry permit. That is my response to the sstupidity of those who pretend that while 1200 gun laws on the books don't work, another hundred will. Large magazines exist because people eant them and when the Federals dcome to getr you, those with them will be glad. There was a gun law that would have prevented Dylan Roof from getting guns, but it didn't work. No gun laws would have prevented parkland either. If people want to live in a gun free country, there are choices. Watching the Democrats cheating again is why I want as many guns as possible.
"OK, why does anyone need" is an opinion. Do I think they're necessary? It doesn't matter, and there's a reason why the military doesn't use them, they jam easily. Please find the legal decision which justifies a magazine size ban.
The NRA fundraises off of the left's admissions that they want to confiscate guns. Yes, admissions that you dismiss as a "boogey man." Google the "mandatory buybacks" so many of them promote. Or Andrew Cuomo's attempt to muscle banks that process firearms transactions. It's real. I can't tell my hardcore gun rights friends (look up GOA vs. NRA) that confiscation isn't on the table when it clearly is.
If you want the gun rights side to "come to the table," you'll see we were there all along. But 2nd amendment rights, as elucidated in the Heller decision, are not negotiable.
@Tetradon, most of your stuff here is talking points, and basically just a lot of junk pushed by the NRA, freedom is relative, you have the right to swing your arms but that right ends near my jaw, don't forget that.
Now we regulate lots of stuff, there's no reason not to regulate firearms especially relative to the amount of damage they cause. But I'll offer up a proposal, as a compromise, just like owning an automobile, let's require firearms owners to carry mandatory insurance to cover and repair any damage they might cause.
Bet that gets some push back, but fuck em they don't have more rights than anyone else, and while we're at it let be sure that these folks that own such items, with the ability to cause such destruction are trained in the proper use of those instruments, require training just like we do with every thing else.
I don't think bringing them to the table is the answer, I think requiring them to take responsibility is necessary.
Or we could just let them learn how to use a musket. lol
Lets force people who have an abortion to buy abortion insurance. Abortion kills more than guns do. Whe will we have mandatory parenting classes? When will we have mandatory free speech classes? There was no abortion by drugs back when the Constitution, which rally doesn;'t cover abortion anyway, so if we go back to muskets, we also go back to medicine in 1789 as well. Don't like gunbs? Don't own one.
^ Hey you guys get on a topic and stay there this is just what about-ism we were talking about the second amendment, lets stick with that topic, I support the second amendment, but at least I know what I'm talking about,
You cannot discuss limiting a Constitutional right by ignoring what other rights are limited; not limited and whether or not those supporting the limiting of a clear right under the Constitution, fail to support limiting other rights, simply because they support them. Seems like the left is fine with other "rights" not being limited making this nothiong more than politics. Simple fact is that school shootings are a generational problem and not a gun problem at all.
Si. All individuals have the inalienable right to defend themselves. I am 100 percent in support of the Second Amendment. I carry daily because I have no confidence in anyone, other than myself, to come to my rescue in the precious seconds that my life may depend on such need. Bad things can happen very fast and if one is not at the ready, then shit can go sideways quick.
That's totally ridiculous you can't boil everything down to left vs right, sounds more like just an inability to think, and its boring circular logic, you seem to think everything is a nail to be pounded on. more likely the only tool you know how to use is a hammer.
@twentyfive, again, you can't counter anything I said, so you resort to the fallacious appeal to ridicule. I accept your concession that Democrats do want to impinge on private firearms ownership.
The insurance paradigm doesn't apply well to gun ownership, given that insurance covers unforeseen accidents, not intentional crimes. Additionally, it burdens the practice of a constitutional right and therefore is unlikely to stand up in court. Driving is not a constitutional right. So, no deal. Training? Sure. And God bless the NRA for providing the gold standard in such training. I provided four such ideas above, all of which NRA members are on record as supporting.
Hint: we don't want senseless shootings any more than you do. We're not "asking" for gun rights, they were recognized (not created) as ours. Therefore, best to work with us, rather than fantasize about imposing from the outside.
That's pretty basic I guess if you've made up your mind nothing I say will counter, your confirmation bias. believe what you like I haven't tried to impose anything, in reality you seem to think that somehow you have rights that I don't, have a good evening, my only mistake was thinking that there was a discussion to be had, I see now you can't see the forest because the trees are in your way.
25,
"Give me an actual example of a citizen or group of citizens in the modern era forcing a governmental change in these United States."
You stated this and that really surprises me being as you typed it. The fact that the above hasn't happen pretty much proves it works. This can be proven by all the other countries that DON'T have a 2nd and the "government" becomes a Venezuela!
Hatwe to let you in on a secret 25: but just because you cannot convince others that you and your "tactics" are right, doesn't mean anything nefarious, or an unwillingness to listen to what you say. It just means you failed to convincde us and its not reason to get perturbed. If you haven't noticed that EVERYTHING in this country right now is right or left you need to limnit what you chat about to tits and ass.
Just to let you guys back in on another little secret, I'm far from perturbed, and not using any tactics, laughing at the notion, that a bunch of y'all think that by owning a few ARs or some other such weaponry you are all going to stop the government from doing whatever it's gonna do. And clubber this ain't Venezuela , and Tetradon, not trying to take away your gun rights, just pointing out the rights that you do have aren't any different than any one else's and if the fragility of those rights depends on you being armed well that;s a joke.
The first time the Government shows up to disarm a law abiding gun owner; some people on both sides will be killed. The more often it happens, the more Government soldiers get killed. The more citizens getting killed, the more the citizens fight back. Its not just one person fighting the Government at the end; its all who desire to be free. This country was founded upon the idea that big government is bad; which is why we have such a focus on local politics, unlike the monolithic governments in socialist Europe. History has shown us repeatedly that an armed populace is far harder to control than an unarmed populace. The more the left pushes on guns; the more people buy, but hey doing the same wrong thing over and over again is very progressive.
@Twentyfive, I don't know why you keep saying I think I have more rights than you. We have the same right to bear arms, and to be free from harm. What no individual has is the right to ban something constitutional because they're scared of it or find it distasteful.
You're repeating a common facile argument about ARs not stopping the government. For one, asymmetric warfare stopped the invincible US military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. Apache helicopters and Reaper drones aren't the right tools for every engagement.
25,
"And clubber this ain't Venezuela ,..."
And neither is Venezuela any longer! It WAS one of the richest countries in the world and now they eat dogs. And yes, a small armed under equipped force CAN defeat a much larger adversary. See Revolutionary War. History has a knack for repeating. Maybe you just aren't as old and wise as some. :)
25,
I take the state of the world seriously, even though I won't be on that much longer, but I do care about what my children and grandson will Inherit.
The church incident in Texas proves that a gun in the hands of a good guy can prevent disaster. And the current condition of Chicago is also a perfect example that guns aren't the problem, people are.
The 2nd Amendment should remain where it is. It protects us and those we love from criminals and an oppressive government. It was just as relevant 200 years ago as it is today.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." - Jeff Cooper
My answer is still whatever , and for the record, it means nothing I say is going to change your mind and nothing you say has changed mine, the implications of your answer was you’re right and anyone that disagrees with you is wrong, so I have nothing to add and believe me I care just as much about my children and grandchildren as you say you do, and seriously worry about the world we’re leaving them.
"The US National Guard is a well regulated State Militia. They under the authority of each individual state."
Yes, and no. They are under the authority of the State, until the feds give countermanding orders.
"Well regulated" as used in the Constitution does not mean what those words mean today. It means what it meant when the Constitution was written (see the opinions of numerous Supreme Court Justices and other Constitutional scholars on that subject). Basically, it meant "in good working order." Something that was "well regulated" was something that was functioning properly.
In addition using it as a prefatory phrase like that was *not* meant to *restrict* any right, it was to explain why the right was worth protecting.
And to whomever said "2/3 of the states", a constitutional amendment requires that at least three quarters of the State legislatures ratify it, not two thirds. That means that only 13 states need vote no, or even abstain, to kill any amendment. Look at a map sometime and tell me there aren't 13 states that would tell any such amendment to go fuck itself up the ass with barbed wire.
I said it was 2/3 of the states. Thanks for correcting me. I was responding to a question posed very early in the thread - if the second amend is so wrong why don’t the dems talk about overturning it? My answer still holds. It’s a very short discussion. The second amendment, or any part of the constitution, won’t be repealed or changed. It’s too difficult to get widespread appeal sufficient to get 3/4 of the states on board. Not happening. Which is why everyone talks instead about what is allowable regulation. As this thread has also shown. Carry on.
As for those that don't like the 2nd, just don't have a "musket"! Simple as that. And I await the ones that want to infringe on the lawful people because there are outlaws, who always obey the law. :)
I wonder how many in that recent church shooting were anti 2nd and now still are?
81 comments
Read the Federalist Papers on this subject, well regulated are key words .
"you do not have unlimited rights in this area, and various jurisdictions, have an absolute right to impose "sane" regulation on your right," True, of course. No one has unlimited rights in any area. The typical example being the right to free speech doesn't allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater. If the militia phrase means anything, in my opinion, it means you have the right to bear arms that are suitable for a member of a militia, which is to say personal arms (handguns and rifles). Militia members were not expected to provide crew served weapons, which in the Revolutionary days meant cannons. Today, crew served weapons include things like machineguns and antitank missiles, so no, I agree people don't have the right to "bear" those types of things.
"If you don't like it, work to repeal it." Ever notice the anti-2nd people NEVER mention that?
I own rifles, pistols and shotguns. I have a concealed pistol permit, and when I'm out and about I'm usually carrying my Sig Sauer automatic or my S&W revolver.
So why don’t anti-second amendment people mention it? Because it’s a one sentence “discussion.” Ain’t happening.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Get it?
If you don't grasp why our Founders included the 2nd Amendment, then you need to educate yourself. It damn sure wasn't to go deer hunting!
You mention "the woman and her doctor". That has always bothered me. Other than Mary, can anyone name a woman that became pregnant WITHOUT a man? The baby is as much his as it is the woman's. What happened to his rights?
White male.
Can it get any worse than that?
YES.
Have $$$!
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Get it?”
That’s a lot of block caps just to agree with me.
I'm pro second amendment, just to make that point, it is an amendment not one of the original articles of the constitution, it was added in 1791 well after the Revolutionary war ended, in 1783, and it was intended as a protection of citizens to keep a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self protection, as far as protection against tyranny it's purpose is dubious at best, after all one man's tyrant is another man's freedom fighter, you can debate this all you like truth is in today's charged political atmosphere you won't get a consensus on damn near anything.
Give me an actual example of a citizen or group of citizens in the modern era forcing a governmental change in these United States. This is just a bogus issue, no one is trying to take anybodies guns away, unless there is a legitimate reason, and yeah as both doc, and I have established there is a genuine need for common sense regulation, and no I don't trust you (collective you) to always do the right thing.
Who's trying to take away guns? Have you not listened to Eric Swalwell, Beto O'Rourke, Ralph Northam? They've announced their intent.
Your post immediately followed mine and ended with a “got it?” and I took it as you lecturing me. I own guns, am not in the NRA and despise The Orange Man, so that makes me a librul around here and I expect contrary posts. No worries. Carry on.
PS - I like tits too, so I’m guessing we have that in common.
Guns are used for bad, far more than for good. Most of the time personal guns used to shoot family members.
SJG
I'm a registered Republican but didn't vote for Trump and will not in 2020.
You sure got the NRA's boogey men of the week down pat, but there isn't any group with the ability to take the guns away, maybe you watch too much NRA TV or some such nonsense, but for real it ain't happening.
If you can't answer that, all you have is an opinion.
BTW muskets were the AR-15s of the day.
If everyone had muskets there wouldn't be a conversation.
Actually, the "pro-gun" side (which regards me as a heretic) has provided a lot of ideas, off the top of my head, going after straw purchasers and those who sell to them, interventions for individuals at high risk (which would have stopped the Parkland shooter among others), enforcement of the laws on the books, teaching firearms safety.
You don't get points for good intentions. Try things that work, not just "ban that which sends a chill up my spine."
The NRA fundraises off of the left's admissions that they want to confiscate guns. Yes, admissions that you dismiss as a "boogey man." Google the "mandatory buybacks" so many of them promote. Or Andrew Cuomo's attempt to muscle banks that process firearms transactions. It's real. I can't tell my hardcore gun rights friends (look up GOA vs. NRA) that confiscation isn't on the table when it clearly is.
If you want the gun rights side to "come to the table," you'll see we were there all along. But 2nd amendment rights, as elucidated in the Heller decision, are not negotiable.
Now we regulate lots of stuff, there's no reason not to regulate firearms especially relative to the amount of damage they cause. But I'll offer up a proposal, as a compromise, just like owning an automobile, let's require firearms owners to carry mandatory insurance to cover and repair any damage they might cause.
Bet that gets some push back, but fuck em they don't have more rights than anyone else, and while we're at it let be sure that these folks that own such items, with the ability to cause such destruction are trained in the proper use of those instruments, require training just like we do with every thing else.
I don't think bringing them to the table is the answer, I think requiring them to take responsibility is necessary.
Or we could just let them learn how to use a musket. lol
The insurance paradigm doesn't apply well to gun ownership, given that insurance covers unforeseen accidents, not intentional crimes. Additionally, it burdens the practice of a constitutional right and therefore is unlikely to stand up in court. Driving is not a constitutional right. So, no deal. Training? Sure. And God bless the NRA for providing the gold standard in such training. I provided four such ideas above, all of which NRA members are on record as supporting.
Hint: we don't want senseless shootings any more than you do. We're not "asking" for gun rights, they were recognized (not created) as ours. Therefore, best to work with us, rather than fantasize about imposing from the outside.
"Give me an actual example of a citizen or group of citizens in the modern era forcing a governmental change in these United States."
You stated this and that really surprises me being as you typed it. The fact that the above hasn't happen pretty much proves it works. This can be proven by all the other countries that DON'T have a 2nd and the "government" becomes a Venezuela!
"... your side is trying to block all discussion and actively trying to avoid a consensus, " What we think on either side is irrelevant.
You're repeating a common facile argument about ARs not stopping the government. For one, asymmetric warfare stopped the invincible US military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. Apache helicopters and Reaper drones aren't the right tools for every engagement.
"And clubber this ain't Venezuela ,..."
And neither is Venezuela any longer! It WAS one of the richest countries in the world and now they eat dogs. And yes, a small armed under equipped force CAN defeat a much larger adversary. See Revolutionary War. History has a knack for repeating. Maybe you just aren't as old and wise as some. :)
I’m still going to the titty bar
I take the state of the world seriously, even though I won't be on that much longer, but I do care about what my children and grandson will Inherit.
The 2nd Amendment should remain where it is. It protects us and those we love from criminals and an oppressive government. It was just as relevant 200 years ago as it is today.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." - Jeff Cooper
Your statement about caring to me, "You seem to think I don’t and that’s kind of insulting".
And this is YOUR statement that triggered my statement to you about caring.
"Like I said whatever"
DUH!
"...you’re right and anyone that disagrees with you is wrong,"
Covers any disagreement in the world.
I'll leave you with that.
Yes, and no. They are under the authority of the State, until the feds give countermanding orders.
"Well regulated" as used in the Constitution does not mean what those words mean today. It means what it meant when the Constitution was written (see the opinions of numerous Supreme Court Justices and other Constitutional scholars on that subject). Basically, it meant "in good working order." Something that was "well regulated" was something that was functioning properly.
In addition using it as a prefatory phrase like that was *not* meant to *restrict* any right, it was to explain why the right was worth protecting.
And to whomever said "2/3 of the states", a constitutional amendment requires that at least three quarters of the State legislatures ratify it, not two thirds. That means that only 13 states need vote no, or even abstain, to kill any amendment. Look at a map sometime and tell me there aren't 13 states that would tell any such amendment to go fuck itself up the ass with barbed wire.
I wonder how many in that recent church shooting were anti 2nd and now still are?