Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Thoughts on the Second Amendment (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=881721)

kirkrapine 09-09-2019 01:08 AM

Thoughts on the Second Amendment
 
"A well-regulated [which in 18th-Century parlance meant, "well armed"] militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ."

But, it isn't.

The militia, in the 18th-Century sense (a non-professional volunteer force, as distinct from a National Guard of part-time professional soldiers) has played no part in any American conflict since the Spanish-American War. And yet we remain safe and free.

The FFs were afraid of a large-scale standing professional army, because they still nurtured painful memories of the Redcoats, and feared a professional army being used as a tool of domestic rule, as it often was in contemporary Europe. They were committed to a militia-based defense system, requiring that everybody be allowed to have a musket by the fireplace to use for national defense in the event the limited small-scale standing army proved inadequate to fend off invaders. That was the point of the 2d Am.

But, since then, the U.S. Army has only been used for domestic rule in only a few instances, none of them regrettable -- Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights movement, and that's all. And in no instance has any militia been used to any good purpose.

At any rate, the FFs never conceived of the militia being used as anything but an arm of the state -- certainly, not as a countervailing force against the state. After all, the Constitution authorizes the president to command the militia. The "insurrectionary theory" of the 2d Am. is total bullshit.

And none of this has anything to do with hunting or home defense. The authors of the 2d Am. would have dismissed such concerns as irrelevant.

Little Nemo 09-09-2019 01:39 AM

We have an active thread on this subject.

Abatis 09-09-2019 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirkrapine (Post 21848990)
At any rate, the FFs never conceived of the militia being used as anything but an arm of the state -- certainly, not as a countervailing force against the state. After all, the Constitution authorizes the president to command the militia. The "insurrectionary theory" of the 2d Am. is total bullshit

Well, let's just dispense with this quickly . . .

Federalist 46 addresses this specifically and it plainly assumes that the federal militia regulations have organized the citizens but circumstances have developed that demand the states defend themselves using that organization against the federal standing army:
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
So Madison said in a nation of 3.5 million total souls, the armed citizen militia would outnumber the standing army by a factor of 17-20 to 1, and when all those "able to bear arms" (who need to borrow one) are factored in, the ratio is about 25 to 1.

Today, those ratios that Madison refer to remain damn close . . . We have 325 million total souls, the active duty and reserve "standing army" military is just under 1% of that, about 2.5 million . . . And to them are "opposed" at least 75 million armed citizens, for a factor of 30 to 1. Hey, we are a bunch of gun nuts!

Madison's scenario assumes 500,000 men are in the militia and their allegiance is to their home state and they need to fight the federal government . . . But what happens if it is the state government who turns against the people?

Federalist 28 speaks on this:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
See, the 2nd Amendment is working fine; all that the 2nd Amendment was ever intended to do is just maintain the people's numerical superiority over the nation's armed forces and since the citizens have their own military useful arms in their own hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority, or just the local ruffians.

BobLibDem 09-09-2019 08:40 AM

The Federalist Papers have no particular significance and quoting them doesn't prove anything. I don't care if the omniscient founders didn't like standing armies, we have one now. To think that the citizens could stand up militarily to government troops is insanity. Maybe in the age of muskets, but not in the days of night vision and drones. The states have their own well regulated militia, it's called the National Guard. If you're not serving in the Guard, you have no particular right to any weaponry.

Jasmine 09-09-2019 08:47 AM

Oh, yes, the assertion that our populace has to remain armed to the teeth in order to maintain our freedom is a complete myth. There are a host of nations right now that have existed as democracies for a very long time, even centuries, that have very few guns in their societies.

BobLibDem 09-09-2019 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasmine (Post 21849281)
Oh, yes, the assertion that our populace has to remain armed to the teeth in order to maintain our freedom is a complete myth. There are a host of nations right now that have existed as democracies for a very long time, even centuries, that have very few guns in their societies.

And I might add that the Poles and East Germans disposed of their communist overlords without firing a shot. Armed revolutions aren't that common any more, governments are toppled more by massive protests and/or more simply at the ballot box.

Shodan 09-09-2019 09:13 AM

  1. "Well regulated" does not just mean "well armed", and
  2. If you are arguing that we don't need a militia, you are wrong by definition, because the Constitution says we do. Feel free to disagree - until you got two thirds of Congress plus 38 states to also disagree, you remain wrong.
Regards,
Shodan

Cheesesteak 09-09-2019 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21849319)
If you are arguing that we don't need a militia, you are wrong by definition, because the Constitution says we do.

Since when does the Constitution define reality? If the Constitution said that Pi = 3, that wouldn't make it so, even if two thirds of Congress plus 38 states agreed.
Whether or not we, the United States of America, need a militia is not determined by laws approved 200+ years ago, but by our own assessment of modern military needs.

And I agree with BobLibDem that citizens with rifles are no match for the modern military. It was different when everyone was armed with muzzle loaders. Today, even the most heavily armed civilian compound can fend off the government only because the government isn't actually trying to kill the citizens.

Shodan 09-09-2019 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak (Post 21849351)
Since when does the Constitution define reality?

Since about 1787 or thereabouts.
Quote:

Whether or not we, the United States of America, need a militia is not determined by laws approved 200+ years ago...
Actually, yes it is. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land - it remains in force until it is amended (or abolished).

Regards,
Shodan

DrFidelius 09-09-2019 10:06 AM

Or ignored as outdated.
When was the last time Congress granted a letter of Marque and Reprisal?

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11

XT 09-09-2019 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849269)
The Federalist Papers have no particular significance and quoting them doesn't prove anything. I don't care if the omniscient founders didn't like standing armies, we have one now. To think that the citizens could stand up militarily to government troops is insanity. Maybe in the age of muskets, but not in the days of night vision and drones. The states have their own well regulated militia, it's called the National Guard. If you're not serving in the Guard, you have no particular right to any weaponry.

It 'proves', or at least gives insight into their intent and what they were thinking. You ignore it because it doesn't say what you want it to say, which is that the intent was for a militia and therefore private citizens don't have a right to keep and bear arms (i.e. it's not a personal right but just an extension of being in the militia).

Whether a militia is still necessary or not is, of course, debatable. I'd say we DO have such a force, as you indicated, the National Guard as well as the various reserve formations filling that role. Obviously, today, we don't need to have our militia/reserve forces armed from their own pockets, so for sure that part of the 2nd is an anachronism. Sadly for you, this means nothing, as the personal right to keep and bear arms doesn't require the militia part, unless one ignores the actual intent of the authors...which is what you and those on your side have been trying to do for ages now. Basically, reinterpret the right out of existence, since you can't, you know, actually do it using the process we actually have to get rid of amendments. Much easier to just reinterpret it to mean what you want and then bob's your uncle, no more pesky right.

Velocity 09-09-2019 10:27 AM

I agree, the 2nd Amendment is totally outdated and serves little purpose today. That being said, good luck repealing it.

BobLibDem 09-09-2019 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21849319)
  1. "Well regulated" does not just mean "well armed", and
  2. If you are arguing that we don't need a militia, you are wrong by definition, because the Constitution says we do. Feel free to disagree - until you got two thirds of Congress plus 38 states to also disagree, you remain wrong.
Regards,
Shodan

1- Correct. Well regulated means organized and under control of an authority. Gun nuts have their own meaning which they think is true because it gets repeated.
2- We have a militia. It's called the National Guard.

bump 09-09-2019 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak (Post 21849351)
And I agree with BobLibDem that citizens with rifles are no match for the modern military. It was different when everyone was armed with muzzle loaders. Today, even the most heavily armed civilian compound can fend off the government only because the government isn't actually trying to kill the citizens.

You say that, but I'd argue that Iraq, Afghanistan and any number of other insurgencies and asymmetrical wars say otherwise.

Beyond that, I always read the 2nd Amendment as not only being a hedge against tyranny by allowing the common man to be armed as part of what's called the "unorganized militia", but that it's also the Constitutional underpinning of the National Guard (the actual organized militia).

The fact that somewhere around half of the nation's ground combat power is part of the National Guard is a powerful hedge against tyranny, as there aren't any guarantees that they'd just blindly agree to be federalized if strange stuff was going down.

Shodan 09-09-2019 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849474)
We have a militia. It's called the National Guard.

The OP thinks we don't need it, nor a militia in any other form. I disagree. So did the FF, and so does the Constitution.

Regards,
Shodan

The Other Waldo Pepper 09-09-2019 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849474)
1- Correct. Well regulated means organized and under control of an authority. Gun nuts have their own meaning which they think is true because it gets repeated.
2- We have a militia. It's called the National Guard.

So? It doesn’t refer to “the right of that militia to keep and bear arms”. It goes on and on about a well-regulated militia for a while, but for some reason then switches to mentioning the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Not how I would’ve written it, but that’s how it got written.

BobLibDem 09-09-2019 11:11 AM

From former Chief Justice Warren Burger:

Quote:

The late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, in 1991, that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” Burger was no liberal, and his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time.

I'm of the opinion that you cannot assert an individual right to bear arms unless you completely ignore the first half of the second amendment.

QuickSilver 09-09-2019 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21849319)
  1. "Well regulated" does not just mean "well armed", and
  2. If you are arguing that we don't need a militia, you are wrong by definition, because the Constitution says we do. Feel free to disagree - until you got two thirds of Congress plus 38 states to also disagree, you remain wrong.
Regards,
Shodan

1) Armed citizens are neither well regulated nor well armed with respect to the standing army and national guard.
2) So civil rights activists were wrong about human rights and equality until the actual passing of the ERA?

The Other Waldo Pepper 09-09-2019 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849534)
I'm of the opinion that you cannot assert an individual right to bear arms unless you completely ignore the first half of the second amendment.

I’m of the opinion that, facts being stubborn things, I can but look at the bit that mentions “the right of the people” — and try as I might to wish it wasn’t worded that way, in the end I can but shrug and say, “huh; it is worded that way.”

BobLibDem 09-09-2019 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21849546)
I’m of the opinion that, facts being stubborn things, I can but look at the bit that mentions “the right of the people” — and try as I might to wish it wasn’t worded that way, in the end I can but shrug and say, “huh; it is worded that way.”

I interpret the right of "the people" to be collective. They have the collective right to be armed via the National Guard, which is today's "well-regulated militia".

QuickSilver 09-09-2019 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21849546)
I’m of the opinion that, facts being stubborn things, I can but look at the bit that mentions “the right of the people” — and try as I might to wish it wasn’t worded that way, in the end I can but shrug and say, “huh; it is worded that way.”

"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."

Far be it from me to be a pedant about punctuation, but the statement is separated by commas, not periods. Seems an important detail. Though clearly the courts have spoken to rule otherwise.

iiandyiiii 09-09-2019 11:53 AM

I think trying to decipher things like original intent, or the true meaning of the Constitution, matters less and less these days, and political concerns are becoming more clearly the driver of judicial decisions. Right now, the Republicans own a majority of the SCOTUS, so their preferred interpretation of the 2A rules... in the future, maybe Democrats will own a majoity, and their preferred interpretation will be the one that "counts".

Maybe things will improve, and SCOTUS will recede from politics, but without a massive sea-change in politics, it's hard to see how that could happen.

XT 09-09-2019 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849585)
I interpret the right of "the people" to be collective. They have the collective right to be armed via the National Guard, which is today's "well-regulated militia".

Just like all those other rights are collective and predicated on being in some special group, right? Only if you are in the press, say, do you get a special protected right to speech, or if you are in a religious organization do you get a protected right of freedom of religion. Yeah, it all makes sense!

No, it doesn't. It never has. It's ridiculous to look at what the authors actually wrote and make the conclusion you are making except, as you already noted, you don't care what the authors wrote on the subject as it doesn't conform to your conclusion. And you have to match your already pre-determined conclusion with the facts or what fun is it all?

AHunter3 09-09-2019 12:47 PM

The Senate has adopted rules whereby a Senator can invoke a filibuster without actually having to stand at the podium and read the unabridged dictionary for hours and hours.

Can't we adopt a rule by which the individual citizen can invoke a revolution against the government and if the government can't get 3/5 of the populace to overrule it, they have to disband or something, without doing the gun thing?

I mean, it isn't like a basement supply of AK-47s is going to enable the local activist to resist the firepower available to the federal government. Now if the 2nd amendment were to be interpreted as giving me as an individual the right to amass an arsenal of tactical nukes, well maybe. Throw in some positioning satellites for good measure. But as far as I know, the 2nd amendment is not interpreted in that fashion, so there are already limits on what I'm allowed to own, firepower-wise, yes?

BobLibDem 09-09-2019 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XT (Post 21849719)
Just like all those other rights are collective and predicated on being in some special group, right? Only if you are in the press, say, do you get a special protected right to speech, or if you are in a religious organization do you get a protected right of freedom of religion. Yeah, it all makes sense!

No, it doesn't. It never has. It's ridiculous to look at what the authors actually wrote and make the conclusion you are making except, as you already noted, you don't care what the authors wrote on the subject as it doesn't conform to your conclusion. And you have to match your already pre-determined conclusion with the facts or what fun is it all?

Perhaps that's why free speech and religion didn't have the preambles stating that their purpose wasn't for having a well-regulated press or priesthood.

bump 09-09-2019 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849585)
I interpret the right of "the people" to be collective. They have the collective right to be armed via the National Guard, which is today's "well-regulated militia".

Actually, Federal law draws a distinction between the "organized militia", which is the National Guard, and the "unorganized militia".

Quote:

10 U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So technically, if you're between male, and between 17 and 45 years old, you're part of the militia whether you know it or not. And presumably, the right to keep and bear arms would extend to you as part of that unorganized militia, not just to the National Guard in its capacity as the organized militia.

ElvisL1ves 09-09-2019 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21849793)
And presumably, the right to keep and bear arms would extend to you as part of that unorganized militia

And it would require you to become well-regulated if it ever came to mean anything tangible.

XT 09-09-2019 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849776)
Perhaps that's why free speech and religion didn't have the preambles stating that their purpose wasn't for having a well-regulated press or priesthood.

And, interestingly enough, the original draft(s) of the 2nd didn't either. Weird, huh? Must be as you say, they really meant it to only apply to a special, protected class...

(which is, ironically true, if you restate 'special, protected class...' to equal 'white people'. It's just not the restriction you are implying)

Kearsen1 09-09-2019 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 21849754)
The Senate has adopted rules whereby a Senator can invoke a filibuster without actually having to stand at the podium and read the unabridged dictionary for hours and hours.

Can't we adopt a rule by which the individual citizen can invoke a revolution against the government and if the government can't get 3/5 of the populace to overrule it, they have to disband or something, without doing the gun thing?

I mean, it isn't like a basement supply of AK-47s is going to enable the local activist to resist the firepower available to the federal government. Now if the 2nd amendment were to be interpreted as giving me as an individual the right to amass an arsenal of tactical nukes, well maybe. Throw in some positioning satellites for good measure. But as far as I know, the 2nd amendment is not interpreted in that fashion, so there are already limits on what I'm allowed to own, firepower-wise, yes?


How many of those fellows in the standing army do you think would support the cause of getting rid of the guns?
I'd bet 80% of them are staunch 2nd amendment advocates ...

Lumpy 09-09-2019 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849297)
And I might add that the Poles and East Germans disposed of their communist overlords without firing a shot. Armed revolutions aren't that common any more, governments are toppled more by massive protests and/or more simply at the ballot box.

No, the communist puppet governments in eastern Europe couldn't survive without their Soviet overlords. Massive protests didn't work as well at Tiananmen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrFidelius (Post 21849423)
Or ignored as outdated.
When was the last time Congress granted a letter of Marque and Reprisal?

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11

Congress could, it's just that commerce raiding is obsolete militarily and the USA agreed with other maritime nations to stop doing so in order to prevent high seas piracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849474)
1- Correct. Well regulated means organized and under control of an authority. Gun nuts have their own meaning which they think is true because it gets repeated.

This link, (admittedly pro-gun) gives several quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary over the years, demonstrating the archaic use of the phrase "well regulated". So no, it doesn't mean "under control of an authority"- which incidentally the term "disciplined" was used for at the time of the 2nd and contemporary writings like the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. I've read them all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21849507)
So? It doesn’t refer to “the right of that militia to keep and bear arms”. It goes on and on about a well-regulated militia for a while, but for some reason then switches to mentioning the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Not how I would’ve written it, but that’s how it got written.

And regarding documents contemporary with the 2nd Amendment: the word "militia" is invariably used in a context that makes it clear the writer is talking about the populace at large. They never, ever say "a militia"; it's always "the militia" i.e., a plural noun, as constructed from the Latin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849534)
From former Chief Justice Warren Burger:
Quote:

The late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, in 1991, that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” Burger was no liberal, and his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time.
I'm of the opinion that you cannot assert an individual right to bear arms unless you completely ignore the first half of the second amendment.

Funny, years before that the Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5 said
Quote:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
Doesn't sound like a bunch of rednecks to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XT (Post 21849719)
Just like all those other rights are collective and predicated on being in some special group, right? Only if you are in the press, say, do you get a special protected right to speech, or if you are in a religious organization do you get a protected right of freedom of religion. Yeah, it all makes sense!

No, it doesn't. It never has. It's ridiculous to look at what the authors actually wrote and make the conclusion you are making except, as you already noted, you don't care what the authors wrote on the subject as it doesn't conform to your conclusion. And you have to match your already pre-determined conclusion with the facts or what fun is it all?

The Embarrassing Second Amendment pointed out how differently the 2nd has been treated from all other articles of the Bill Of Rights, and how problematic this is for progressives who want to promote human rights but at the same time be in favor of gun control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHunter3 (Post 21849754)
The Senate has adopted rules whereby a Senator can invoke a filibuster without actually having to stand at the podium and read the unabridged dictionary for hours and hours.

Can't we adopt a rule by which the individual citizen can invoke a revolution against the government and if the government can't get 3/5 of the populace to overrule it, they have to disband or something, without doing the gun thing?

I mean, it isn't like a basement supply of AK-47s is going to enable the local activist to resist the firepower available to the federal government. Now if the 2nd amendment were to be interpreted as giving me as an individual the right to amass an arsenal of tactical nukes, well maybe. Throw in some positioning satellites for good measure. But as far as I know, the 2nd amendment is not interpreted in that fashion, so there are already limits on what I'm allowed to own, firepower-wise, yes?

Why, why, why, why, WHY do some people insist that a pro-gun interpretation of the Second Amendment would mean that any tiny band of yahoos can rebel against the government? They can try, certainly, but they'll be heavily outvoted by lots of other people with guns; just for starters, those volunteers from the posse comitatus and the militia that form our civil police forces and National Guard. That was the whole point: an armed population would be democracy in its rawest form, in situations where civil law and voting had failed. From 1861 to 1865 a very large group of people decided to rebel against the US government; they only failed because an even larger group of people chose (or at least, acquiesced) to fight against them.

As for the argument that the civilian population is inadequately armed to resist a tyranny, gun proponents agree: by a series of legal sophistries it has became all but impossible to legally acquire select-fire rifles. Many gun proponents want the 1934 NFA scrapped.

bump 09-09-2019 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21849813)
And it would require you to become well-regulated if it ever came to mean anything tangible.

What it means is that most of the arguments that the militia = National Guard aren't quite that easy, as the militia is defined more broadly than that.

And as the 2nd Amendment is written, the whole 'well regulated' part is more of a preamble than a condition- it defines why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not that it's a necessary condition for the right to keep and bear arms to remain uninfringed.

ElvisL1ves 09-09-2019 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21850034)
What it means is that most of the arguments that the militia = National Guard aren't quite that easy, as the militia is defined more broadly than that.

Specifically, it's defined as two types: the "real" one (the Guard) and the imaginary one (the unorganized thing).

Quote:

And as the 2nd Amendment is written, the whole 'well regulated' part is more of a preamble than a condition- it defines why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not that it's a necessary condition for the right to keep and bear arms to remain uninfringed.
And the standard response to that common claim is that, if they didn't intend it to guide the understanding of its meaning, why did they even put it in?

Shodan 09-09-2019 03:23 PM

The free exchange of ideas being essential to a well-regulated message board, the right of people to join and post shall not be infringed.

Therefore, only the mods are allowed to post.

Regards,
Shodan

kirkrapine 09-09-2019 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21849319)
  1. "Well regulated" does not just mean "well armed", and
  2. If you are arguing that we don't need a militia, you are wrong by definition, because the Constitution says we do. Feel free to disagree - until you got two thirds of Congress plus 38 states to also disagree, you remain wrong.
Regards,
Shodan

N.B.: We don't have a militia any more. The NG is a different animal, and private "militia" organizations don't count.

AHunter3 09-09-2019 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kearsen1 (Post 21849873)
How many of those fellows in the standing army do you think would support the cause of getting rid of the guns?
I'd bet 80% of them are staunch 2nd amendment advocates ...

Good for them.

I assume you wrote this because you thought it was relevant to what I said?!? :confused:

The relevant question would be how many of those fellows in the standing army would support whatever cause had led me to pick up my weapons and ammunition, me thinking, at the time, that what I was lending my support to was in the nation's best interest?

I genuinely (as opposed to disingenuously) think that some of the time they would support that same cause, even if the structural organization claiming to be "the United States of America" was no longer on the same side. But more often, not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy (Post 21849900)

Why, why, why, why, WHY do some people insist that a pro-gun interpretation of the Second Amendment would mean that any tiny band of yahoos can rebel against the government? They can try, certainly, but they'll be heavily outvoted by lots of other people with guns

I can't speak for "some people", only for myself. I've always assumed that the most important legitimate reason for the populace to remain armed is to protect ourselves from the force most likely to infringe upon our freedom. That would be our own government. See for example the events leading up to the document of 7/4/1776.

Don't assume I'm baiting you, or even that I'm anti-2nd amendment / pro-gun control. I often think the ideal world would be one in which every person on the planet held the ability to turn said planet into a cinderball at will. Be that as it may, I wouldn't want that power handed over to us all overnight. People are as they are (including mindset) in part because of our lack of power.

QuickSilver 09-09-2019 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21850111)
The free exchange of ideas being essential to a well-regulated message board, the right of people to join and post shall not be infringed.

Therefore, only the mods are allowed to post.

Regards,
Shodan

Nice try but not even close.

"Therefore, only those who register on the message board are allowed to post".

See, by joining, you are a registered member of a group with specific privileges, and subject to its rules and regulations.

kirkrapine 09-09-2019 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy (Post 21849900)
As for the argument that the civilian population is inadequately armed to resist a tyranny, gun proponents agree: by a series of legal sophistries it has became all but impossible to legally acquire select-fire rifles. Many gun proponents want the 1934 NFA scrapped.

No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense, and it would be unsporting to use such a weapon to hunt.

Fear Itself 09-09-2019 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21849379)
Since about 1787 or thereabouts. Actually, yes it is. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land - it remains in force until it is amended (or abolished).

Regards,
Shodan

Are you familiar with the Tenth Amendment?

HurricaneDitka 09-09-2019 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirkrapine (Post 21850130)
No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense...

That's certainly one opinion, although it's not one I can see any reason to give any weight at all.

Lumpy 09-09-2019 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirkrapine (Post 21850130)
No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense, and it would be unsporting to use such a weapon to hunt.

Which is why before 1934 most people didn't go out and buy a Thompson submachine gun or a Browning Automatic Rifle. And didn't before 1986, when it was expensive and difficult but still legal to buy new ones. These would definitely be "in case of emergency, break glass" weapons. But if you're saying "beyond target shooting, no civilian would ever have a legal reason to shoot one", then that sort of gets to the point: if a serious dispute ever arose over what was legal and what wasn't. No government is ever going to say that its edicts are illegal, so you can't go by that to determine if a despotism has arisen. A government that had the broad support of an overwhelming majority of the populace would have nothing to fear by permitting guns.

And in fact I can think of rare but plausible situations- namely when on the defensive and outnumbered- when it would be useful to have a full-auto firearm. And I broadly believe in the following quote from a 19th century state supreme court ruling: "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

QuickSilver 09-09-2019 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21850170)
That's certainly one opinion, although it's not one I can see any reason to give any weight at all.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court chose not to solicit (much less give weight to) your opinion on the matter.

XT 09-09-2019 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21850058)
And the standard response to that common claim is that, if they didn't intend it to guide the understanding of its meaning, why did they even put it in?

Well, they didn't originally put it in. It was put in for a variety of reasons while the amendment was discussed and debated, but the real reason was that some of the southern states wanted assurances about WHO would have the right (and, more specifically not the right) to keep and bear arms, and under what conditions. Also, there is the thing that's been pointed out to you multiple times, which is that the use of the terms in the amendment have changed over time, and you are using a modern use of the words that wasn't used then, mainly what 'well regulated' actually meant then, as opposed to now. You just want to read the thing (with zero context as to how it got to the final state, what the authors actually thought about the subject and why it changed multiple times) with a modern use of the words as if the terms are exactly the same today as they were then. It's been your thing in these threads throughout time, and basically it's the general stance of all folks who hold your interpretation...we don't need context, we don't need history, we just read it exactly as it's written (and sort of squint a bit, especially about the implications of a right in the Constitution for all citizens that is only for a special group) with the words meaning what we know them to mean today, 200+ years later.

It would be more honest if you guys would just say something like 'who gives a shit what the original authors meant?' and go from there, especially since we kind of know what they meant, as they wrote about this in more detail than just the amendment. Of course, then you'd be forced to the realization that you can't just reinterpret the thing away by fiat and have to do some actual work using the process we have. Which really sucks, to be sure.

HurricaneDitka 09-09-2019 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21850194)

Fortunately, we've still made good progress since 2015: replacing Kennedy with Justice Kavanaugh and seeing California's "freedom week" with Duncan v. Beccera. I expect more progress in the future.

wolfpup 09-09-2019 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21850170)
That's certainly one opinion, although it's not one I can see any reason to give any weight at all.

Maybe this will help.

ElvisL1ves 09-09-2019 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XT (Post 21850213)
assurances about WHO would have the right (and, more specifically not the right) to keep and bear arms, and under what conditions.

Thank you.

Quote:

Also, there is the thing that's been pointed out to you multiple times, which is that the use of the terms in the amendment have changed over time
They still don't necessarily mean what you want them to, no matter how frantically you handwave. That's been pointed out to you multiple times. You're telling us that you don't want the clause to mean anything, so it doesn't. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

If you want there to be a Constitutional right to own your own personal machine guns arsenal, get that amendment going to allow it. Otherwise, go find a recruiter and raise your right hand, okay?

Quote:

we don't need context, we don't need history
If you're declaring the rights of slaveholders to suppress insurrections, you're welcome to. Are you really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21850221)
Fortunately, we've still made good progress since 2015

Who are you including in "we"?

HurricaneDitka 09-09-2019 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 21850223)

Nope. I can't find anything in there that would support the claim "No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense..."

HurricaneDitka 09-09-2019 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21850230)
... Who are you including in "we"?

Americans.

Corry El 09-09-2019 04:38 PM

There are plausible arguments in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment, though I personally would not support doing so. Various of these arguments have been made in the thread, repeating innumerable other threads here and everyplace else.

But the arguments that the 2nd amendment can be ignored by the legislative and executive branches because 'it's obsolete' or 'it means the National Guard' are much, much weaker. Not really serious ones IMO.

Likewise that what the drafters of the document meant is irrelevant. The left side of mainstream jurisprudence (like actual judges) doesn't really think that. 'Originalism' is a matter of degree but 'the Federalist Papers are irrelevant where they directly explain intent' is again not a serious argument IMO.

Again if you set out to repeal the amendment (good luck and be well!) it's perfectly fair to explain you do so because the provision no longer meets the times, isn't in the common interest, etc. But the gambit of pretending it just says the *government* can have military organizations below the federal level when the amendment says *the people* can bear arms...weak. A return to 'non political judges', and I wonder who that is, RBG? :) but even 9 justices like her are not going to write a decision saying 'it means the National Guard and otherwise it refers to nothing'.

Also as in every other tired debate about '2nd amendment', the US federal legislature doesn't have to votes to reinstate a limited 'ban' (just a ban on new sales) on box magazine semi automatic rifles (aka 'assault weapons'). Which was never found unconstitutional when previously in force. It's just not the will of the legislature, and I don't think it would be if the Democrats gained a majority in the Senate (the House might now vote for such a ban but because they knew the Senate would never take it up). Democratic majorities depend on states/districts where voting for that is how you lose that state/district. Why is it so important what the 2nd amendment says when you can actually highly restrict firearms without violating it (or not yet ruled it violates, say NYC's gun laws) without it, yet don't have the votes to even do that? Which also makes repeal of course a ridiculous conversation practically speaking. But 'let's just ignore it and/or pretend it says something other than what it obviously does' doesn't look any better as argument even after considering those practicalities.

Shodan 09-09-2019 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21850128)
Nice try but not even close.

"Therefore, only those who register on the message board are allowed to post".

See, by joining, you are a registered member of a group with specific privileges, and subject to its rules and regulations.

And if the 2A had said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" you would have a point. Since it doesn't, you don't.

You had to change the wording to make my post say something different. Because you recognized the absurdity of "interpreting" it the same way you want to "interpret" the 2A.

You don't get to change the wording of the 2A without amending the Constitution. So your "interpretation" of the 2A doesn't hold water, and you seem to recognize that.

Regards,
Shodan

begbert2 09-09-2019 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21849504)
The OP thinks we don't need it, nor a militia in any other form. I disagree. So did the FF, and so does the Constitution.

So your argument against "The facts and history of the past two centuries manifestly and without exception show that the FF and the Constitution are incorrect about the need for a militia, and thus (according to the amendment itself) the inclusion of the amendment was incorrect" is "But the FF and the Constitution say the things they say and cannot be wrong".

That may be the weakest argument I have ever seen. And I've been in religion threads!

eschereal 09-09-2019 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21849601)
"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."

Far be it from me to be a pedant about punctuation, but the statement is separated by commas, not periods. Seems an important detail. Though clearly the courts have spoken to rule otherwise.

The way it is punctuated, it looks like there are two subordinate clauses between “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … shall not be infringed.” The key issue appears to be the importance of a militia, the part about keeping and bearing arms being a lateral component of that.

Also, I would note the part where it firmly protects the right to manufacture and trade weapons.

XT 09-09-2019 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
They still don't necessarily mean what you want them to, no matter how frantically you handwave. That's been pointed out to you multiple times. You're telling us that you don't want the clause to mean anything, so it doesn't. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Except that we know it does because, again, the folks who wrote the thing also wrote extensively on the subject. That's always been the flaw in your argument because you have never bothered to really read what their thoughts were, instead just wanting to use a modern interpretation of a jumbled mashup of concepts that eventually got voted on....by a committee. In a hot room. With politicians with various goals and desires...one of which was to finish the vote and go somewhere else.

I didn't say the clause means nothing. Again, not like this should surprise you as we've discussed this before, so your feigned ignorance of this aspect is probably really convincing to everyone who hasn't seen these ridiculous debates with you in them for the last decade. :p If you REALLY don't recall I can go over it once again, but I think you know the answer...and why it DOES work that way.

Quote:

If you're declaring the rights of slaveholders to suppress insurrections, you're welcome to. Are you really?
Am I? Why no, I'm not. But clearly you DO know why it was worded the way it was, and who it applied too (namely...white folks). Of course, a lot of rights were set out with that exact same premise. The fact that the US was a slave holding state and that such accommodations were made in the past is distasteful, but I don't see you using a similar argument to get rid of the other rights that were intended for exactly the same set of people. Doing so would basically toss the entire Constitution out, which I doubt anyone really wants. Today, there aren't any slave holders...and, happily enough (though this still has massive flaws), nearly every citizen, regardless of race or religion can own a gun. Definitely not what the original authors wanted, to be sure...but not in the way that you are trying to make it. As the concept of who could and did have the franchise has expanded, so have the folks who are protected by the various rights.

wolfpup 09-09-2019 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21850236)
Nope. I can't find anything in there that would support the claim "No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense..."

Looking at the timestamp on that post, you saw my post, then read that entire detailed and comprehensive article, and composed and posted your reply -- all in less than five minutes. The thoroughness with which you analyze challenges to your preconceived notions is ... less than impressive. Perhaps this is why you -- and so many American gun supporters -- can't see things that are glaringly obvious to the rest of the world.

I'm not going to participate further in this thread, but let me just say that if the Founders could have anticipated the future, if they could have foreseen the Second Amendment quickly degenerating into irrelevant obsolescence, while its unintended consequences gradually mutated into a curse of violence on the whole nation -- literally an epidemic that is widely studied as a compelling subject in epidemiology -- they would have recognized it as the single biggest mistake they ever made.

XT 09-09-2019 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 21850307)
Looking at the timestamp on that post, you saw my post, then read that entire detailed and comprehensive article, and composed and posted your reply -- all in less than five minutes. The thoroughness with which you analyze challenges to your preconceived notions is ... less than impressive. Perhaps this is why you -- and so many American gun supporters -- can't see things that are glaringly obvious to the rest of the world.

I'm not going to participate further in this thread, but let me just say that if the Founders could have anticipated the future, if they could have foreseen the Second Amendment quickly degenerating into irrelevant obsolescence, while its unintended consequences gradually mutated into a curse of violence on the whole nation -- literally an epidemic that is widely studied as a compelling subject in epidemiology -- they would have recognized it as the single biggest mistake they ever made.

Doubtful. And predicated on flawed data, namely that today things are so much more violent than in the past. Or the the founders would care, considering the relative numbers (300+ million citizens, nearly 100 million gun owners and...12k deaths a year? They would definitely be like 'man, as a percentage of the population more folks die of bad water or cuts each year, you bunch of pussies!). What they probably WOULD care about is that minorities are also now full citizens, and that all the rights fully pertain to them. THAT would be a major mental disconnect for even the most liberal (using that term the way they would understand it) of the founding fathers to try and wrap their heads around. But that they would think that the 2nd is the biggest mistake they ever made? Not a chance. For one thing, they would be puzzled...I mean, they knew they weren't perfect, so they gave us a way to change the thing if it REALLY was as archaic and out of step as you make it out to be. Of course, the fact that the public itself isn't wanting to do so kind of puts your own comments in perspective, I'd say.

pkbites 09-09-2019 05:10 PM

So let’s say the 2nd gets repealed.

Most states have constitutions that include an individual right to bear arms, and have laws that allow for the bearing of those arms both in private and public.

What authority does the federal government have to tell the individual states they cannot allow their citizens to own or bear the arms of their choice while in those states?

HurricaneDitka 09-09-2019 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkbites (Post 21850318)
So let’s say the 2nd gets repealed.

Most states have constitutions that include an individual right to bear arms, and have laws that allow for the bearing of those arms both in private and public.

What authority does the federal government have to tell the individual states they cannot allow their citizens to own or bear the arms of their choice while in those states?

<insert commerce clause bullshit here>

begbert2 09-09-2019 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21850330)
<insert commerce clause bullshit here>

Heh, I was toying with the idea of tossing out a joke relating to that.

The obvious approach for a federal government sufficiently annoyed by gun owners to take is to just draft you all. That's legal, right? Militia, army, tomato, potato.

ElvisL1ves 09-09-2019 06:26 PM

"Supremacy clause" would have been a better answer.

pkbites 09-09-2019 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21850330)
<insert commerce clause bullshit here>

And if such arms had been completely manufactured in such states, using only raw materials found in those states?

My point is the repeal or reinterpretation of the 2nd would not have the effect some fantasize it would have.

Also, “Security of a free state” is not limited to invasion or tyranny. Being secure in ones own home and person, being present during times of emergency (such as living in a disaster area or areas of unrest) etc. are all justified reasons for the individual right to arms and part of being necessary for the security of a free state.

ElvisL1ves 09-09-2019 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XT (Post 21850302)
Except that we know it does because, again, the folks who wrote the thing also wrote extensively on the subject.

Including this:

Quote:

(The Congress shall have Power) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

(The Congress shall have Power) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
As anyone who has actually read the entire Constitution would know, but that you obviously do not. Please do yourself a favor and rectify that deficiency.

eschereal 09-09-2019 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21850441)
As anyone who has actually read the entire Constitution would know, but that you obviously do not. Please do yourself a favor and rectify that deficiency.

You will get a counter-argument that 2A begins “A militia …”, which is a totally and completely different thing from “The militia”. Somehow.

HurricaneDitka 09-09-2019 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21850433)
"Supremacy clause" would have been a better answer.

That's not the clause they've used to justify it in the past. For example, go see how many times "commerce" shows up in 18 USC § 922

DrDeth 09-09-2019 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrFidelius (Post 21849423)
Or ignored as outdated.
When was the last time Congress granted a letter of Marque and Reprisal?

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11

After we agree not to do so due to International law, in 1907. Altho we earlier agreed in 1856 but didnt sign, due to other issues.

DrDeth 09-09-2019 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21849474)
2- We have a militia. It's called the National Guard.

The National Guard has been Federalized and even sent overseas. It is not in any way a "Militia' anymore. Some states do maintain a militia, however.

DrDeth 09-09-2019 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirkrapine (Post 21850130)
No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense, and it would be unsporting to use such a weapon to hunt.

Automatic weapons are pretty much illegal or tightly regulated. Few are owned privately.

Semi-automatic shotguns and deer rifles are quite common and used totally legally and in a sportsmanlike manner.


https://www.chuckhawks.com/great_cen...ing_rifles.htm

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...e-planet-26036

https://www.gameandfishmag.com/edito...es_1010/244962


You know, the gun grabbers would do well to educate themselves so they arent always posting stuff out of ignorance like this.

Fear Itself 09-09-2019 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21850524)
Automatic weapons are pretty much illegal or tightly regulated. Few are owned privately.
.

So how will a militia overthrow a tyrannical government, which IS armed with fully automatic weapons?

DrDeth 09-09-2019 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21850194)

No, that decision doesnt say that at all. It says that local and state governments may ban " assault weapons
and large capacity magazines with the ability “to
accept more than 10 rounds.”


So, yeah, you can ban some semi automatic rifles if they have a 10+ round magazine which most semi automatic deer rifles do not.

In no way did SCOTUS rule that "No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle.".

In most areas they are still quite legal to own.

Do note that in that decision there is this "In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), this Court established that the Second
Amendment provides an individual right to possess
firearms, and specifically the right to possess a
handgun for self-defense in the home. "



So, as I have said repeatedly, such reasonable limitations on the 2nd Ad are quite legal.

Altho of course such a ban is pointless and stupid since such weapons are almost never used in crimes. But still- legal.

DrDeth 09-09-2019 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21850058)
Specifically, it's defined as two types: the "real" one (the Guard) and the imaginary one (the unorganized thing).

And the standard response to that common claim is that, if they didn't intend it to guide the understanding of its meaning, why did they even put it in?

The national Gd is no longer in any way shape or form a Militia.

and calling the "unorganized militia" = "Imaginary" is like calling the Moon Walk a hoax. The Unorganized a militia is part of US Federal Law, liek it or now. Putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes wont make it not there.

Because the "no standing army" faction wanted a mention of a militia. The first wording didnt mention a militia at all. The militia part was put in to make the "no standing army" faction happy instead of them adding a additional amendment.

We have been over this several times.

DrDeth 09-09-2019 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 21850223)

Yes. That is the Media, telling you it's guns, rather than- the media, as noted sociologist have proven in peer reviewed journals.

Violent crime have been decreasing- despite even more guns- while mass shootings are on the increase. The reason for that increase is the Media glorifying the killers. It's a fact, proven in studies.

It's also a fact that the media doesnt want you to know that. They'd rather blame guns.

But there were still hundreds of millions of guns decades ago, before the mass shootings were a common occurrence. However the mass media glorifying the shooters in a 24 hour news cycle is new- and the cause of the increase.

DrDeth 09-09-2019 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfpup (Post 21850307)
...

I'm not going to participate further in this thread, but let me just say that if the Founders could have anticipated the future, if they could have foreseen the Second Amendment quickly degenerating into irrelevant obsolescence, while its unintended consequences gradually mutated into a curse of violence on the whole nation -- literally an epidemic that is widely studied as a compelling subject in epidemiology -- they would have recognized it as the single biggest mistake they ever made.

No, they also recognized that people had a right to be secure in their homes and defend them.

And studying a criminology or sociology issue with epidemiology is like studying the moon with a microscope- the wrong tool from the wrong science. Thus studies have been widely disproven and shown to be biased and bogus.

QuickSilver 09-09-2019 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21850538)
No, that decision doesnt say that at all. It says that local and state governments may ban " assault weapons
and large capacity magazines with the ability “to
accept more than 10 rounds.”


So, yeah, you can ban some semi automatic rifles if they have a 10+ round magazine which most semi automatic deer rifles do not.

In no way did SCOTUS rule that "No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle.".

In most areas they are still quite legal to own.

Do note that in that decision there is this "In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), this Court established that the Second
Amendment provides an individual right to possess
firearms, and specifically the right to possess a
handgun for self-defense in the home. "



So, as I have said repeatedly, such reasonable limitations on the 2nd Ad are quite legal.

Altho of course such a ban is pointless and stupid since such weapons are almost never used in crimes. But still- legal.

Do you ever read past the first paragraph? You should, because it says:

Quote:

Petitioners have not and cannot demonstrate
why a case involving restrictions on assault weapons
and large capacity magazines -- an area for which
there is neither a conflict among the circuits, nor any
confusion concerning the proper constitutional
standard to apply -- would provide an appropriate
forum for this Court to revisit its decisions in Heller
and McDonald. The consistent decisions of the
courts below do not merit further review by this
Court.

IOW, "You were told NO, now quit your whining".

Additionally, it's become clear to me that engaging with you in these discussions really is, "pointless and stupid".

DrDeth 09-09-2019 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkbites (Post 21850318)
So let’s say the 2nd gets repealed.

Most states have constitutions that include an individual right to bear arms, and have laws that allow for the bearing of those arms both in private and public.

What authority does the federal government have to tell the individual states they cannot allow their citizens to own or bear the arms of their choice while in those states?

Pretty much none. They could ban the interstate movement of guns. They already ban the interstate sale of guns, unless you are a dealer.

So in order to ban guns, you'd have to get all fifty states to agree. I mean, that's what the gun grabbers have said themselves, when it's been pointed out that some areas did ban handguns, and it did nothing to affect violent crime. Or that CA has banned "assault weapons" for quite some time now, with no effect. The gun grabbers say that those local bans are useless, as the guns move across state lines. That does have some truth to it.

So then wait a minute, not only are we gonna have to get all fifty states to ban guns, but then there's still 3-400 millions guns out there, so of course the killings will continue. Then the gun grabbers will say that "of course they continue. we need to not only ban guns nationwide, but confiscate all other existing guns". In other words, house to house searches and confiscation.

And since banning "assault weapons " is Constitutional, what do they want to ban? Well, of course all semi-autos. Then since a bolt of lever action can be fired almost as fast, ban them too- and since handguns are the biggest use in crimes, ban them also.....

ah that slope is very slippery indeed....

Kent Clark 09-09-2019 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21850242)
You don't get to change the wording of the 2A without amending the Constitution. So your "interpretation" of the 2A doesn't hold water, and you seem to recognize that.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is interesting. Perhaps you can petition your Representative in Congress for permission to travel on a Post Road to the place of government so you can address your concerns. And while you're there, would you also ask why Congress is not regulating Commerce with foreign Nations.

kirkrapine 09-09-2019 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkbites (Post 21850318)
So let’s say the 2nd gets repealed.

Most states have constitutions that include an individual right to bear arms, and have laws that allow for the bearing of those arms both in private and public.

What authority does the federal government have to tell the individual states they cannot allow their citizens to own or bear the arms of their choice while in those states?

If a federal gun ban were constitutional, it would apply everywhere in the U.S. Supremacy clause.

kirkrapine 09-09-2019 10:22 PM

BTW, I have no brief for any particular gun-control regime. I just don't believe gun rights are important enough to be placed above and beyond ordinary legislative politics by constitutional protection. If the 2d Am were repealed, that doesn't mean the end of private gun ownership, it just means the fight over gun control shifts from the courts to the elections and legislatures -- where gun-rights activists still have a good chance of winning.

The NRA does not, as is sometimes said, have power in DC because of its campaign contributions, which don't really amount to all that much. It has power because every Congresscritter knows the NRA can mobilize millions of single-issue voters. Repealing the 2d won't change that.

DrDeth 09-10-2019 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21850585)
Do you ever read past the first paragraph? You should, because it says:



IOW, "You were told NO, now quit your whining".

Additionally, it's become clear to me that engaging with you in these discussions really is, "pointless and stupid".

I dont see how in any way that paragraph invalidates what I was saying. Heller said reasonable limitations are Ok, and that seems to be a reasonable limitation.

You do know that " assault weapons
and large capacity magazines " is not the same at all as "semi-automatic rifle". Altho true, assault weapons are all semi-automatics, there are many, many guns which are semi-automatics that are not assault weapons and do not have a large capacity magazine. So you saying that that case somehow made your statement of "No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle." correct is false. (Not to mention you obviously didnt know that civilians havent really been able to own automatic weapons for some tome now).

It's like the government banning street racing cars and you saying that means they banned all cars with 8 cylinder engines. Or that they banned heroin and that means they banned aspirin also. Both are painkillers, right?

Please educate yourself.

DrDeth 09-10-2019 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirkrapine (Post 21850772)
If a federal gun ban were constitutional, it would apply everywhere in the U.S. Supremacy clause.

It could, depending on how it was worded.

It would take probably another Constitutional ad, like this one "After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."

septimus 09-10-2019 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abatis (Post 21849134)
See, the 2nd Amendment is working fine; all that the 2nd Amendment was ever intended to do is just maintain the people's numerical superiority over the nation's armed forces and since the citizens have their own military useful arms in their own hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority, or just the local ruffians.

Cliven Bundy and his gang of criminals stole land from the U.S. taxpayer and held off the Feds with guns. Koresh and his criminals defended their freedom to follow a religion that emphasized rapes and polygamy using guns at Waco, Texas. Are these the examples that defenders of the view quoted above would point to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21849601)
"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."

Far be it from me to be a pedant about punctuation, but the statement is separated by commas, not periods. Seems an important detail. Though clearly the courts have spoken to rule otherwise.

Nitpick: The version with two commas (or, worse, three!) is simply ungrammatical. Shouldn't all sentences in legal documents that cannot be parsed, that are pure covfefe like junk DNA, be ignored?

But to defend the Infallible Founding Fathers™®, As seen at this image of the handwritten Bill of Rights, the first comma (which renders the entire Amendment gibberish) looks like just a smudge. (Thanks to eschereal for the link, which worked great in 2015 but now, even with help from the Wayback Machine, requires extra clicks.)

bump 09-10-2019 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirkrapine (Post 21850130)
No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense, and it would be unsporting to use such a weapon to hunt.

Ultimately it's none of anyone else's business what rifle I choose to buy, as long as it's legal. And who are YOU to tell me otherwise?

That's the thing here- you're proposing curtailing the rights of millions of people because a literal handful of people can't behave. It's the same old elementary school bullshit writ large, where that one dipshit kid can't behave, so the whole class loses the ability to do something. It pissed me off then, and it pisses me off now.

It's about like saying that because 15 or 20 dumbass teenagers driving sports cars cause fatal wrecks and kill 500 people nationwide, that nobody nationwide should be able to drive sports cars, regardless of driving record, where they live, age, etc...

That's my main objection with this- it's a bunch of people presuming to tell another group of law-abiding citizens what they can or can't do, because of what some OTHER people are doing.

Beyond that, there's something else at work that's making the mass shooting an attractive way for people to act out- what is that something else? I'm not at all convinced that merely removing guns from the equation is going to prevent that- they'll just find another way to do something similar- homemade bombs, driving through crowds, hijacking airliners, etc.... just to name a few things that have already been done in recent history.

THAT is what needs to be identified and remedied. Anything else is at best treating a symptom.

Joeu 09-10-2019 10:36 AM

Re: Well-regulated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy (Post 21849900)
This link, (admittedly pro-gun) gives several quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary over the years, demonstrating the archaic use of the phrase "well regulated".

I generally tend to be skeptical of arguments from dictionary definitions, but I'm especially skeptical of arguments from incomplete dictionary definitions. That admittedly pro-gun site did some not admitted cherry-picking.

The OED itself defines well-regulated this way:
Quote:

Properly governed or directed; (now) esp. strictly controlled by rules or regulations. Also: accurately calibrated or adjusted.
and the citations, if you read all of them, provide a much wider range of meanings than that source acknowledges.
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/227532

ElvisL1ves 09-10-2019 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21850555)
The national Gd is no longer in any way shape or form a Militia.

Dick Act, 1903. Not that you gotta like it. Also do please note that it all became moot anyway when the Regular Army was founded. 1791, for the record.

Quote:

and calling the "unorganized militia" = "Imaginary" is like calling the Moon Walk a hoax.
If it's real, where do I go to find it? Hint: Only the gun crowd has ever even heard of it. If it ever did become a real thing, it wouldn't be "unorganized" anymore, now would it?

If something doesn't actually exist in the real world, legal fictions notwithstanding, then yes, it is imaginary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21851373)
Ultimately it's none of anyone else's business what rifle I choose to buy, as long as it's legal. And who are YOU to tell me otherwise?

It's the business of anyone you might intend to shoot or threaten with it. And you are YOU to tell us you never will? You did buy the thing, after all.

ralfy 09-10-2019 12:04 PM

One can also consider Art. 1 Sec. 8, the Militia Acts, the history of the use of militias, and that in relation to the War of 1812.

QuickSilver 09-10-2019 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21851604)
If it's real, where do I go to find it? Hint: Only the gun crowd has ever even heard of it. If it ever did become a real thing, it wouldn't be "unorganized" anymore, now would it?

If something doesn't actually exist in the real world, legal fictions notwithstanding, then yes, it is imaginary.

Maybe you're issued a super-secret membership card and decoder ring with your first gun purchase?

The "unorganized" bit is the only believable part of the entire argument.

Lumpy 09-10-2019 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeu (Post 21851414)
Re: Well-regulated.


I generally tend to be skeptical of arguments from dictionary definitions, but I'm especially skeptical of arguments from incomplete dictionary definitions. That admittedly pro-gun site did some not admitted cherry-picking.

The OED itself defines well-regulated this way:

and the citations, if you read all of them, provide a much wider range of meanings than that source acknowledges.
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/227532

Couldn't open your link, defaults to member login. And the current definition of "well regulated" isn't at issue.

Kent Clark 09-10-2019 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bump (Post 21851373)
Ultimately it's none of anyone else's business what rifle I choose to buy, as long as it's legal. And who are YOU to tell me otherwise?

I'm a voting citizen of the United States, that's who. And if enough of my fellow citizens petition our elected representatives to change the law - another right guaranteed by the Constitution - who are YOU to tell me otherwise.

Quote:

That's the thing here- you're proposing curtailing the rights of millions of people because a literal handful of people can't behave. It's the same old elementary school bullshit writ large, where that one dipshit kid can't behave, so the whole class loses the ability to do something. It pissed me off then, and it pisses me off now.
Sorry your elementary school years were so bad, but I'll bet none of your classmates was killed by a stray bullet. TWO of my wife's students were, while another one was convicted of murder.

Quote:

It's about like saying that because 15 or 20 dumbass teenagers driving sports cars cause fatal wrecks and kill 500 people nationwide, that nobody nationwide should be able to drive sports cars, regardless of driving record, where they live, age, etc...
It's more like a bunch of teenagers who back in the '70s got the right to buy liquor at age 18, and then drove drunk and killed a bunch of people, and then Congress forced the states to raise the drinking age back to 21, and lower the the blood alcohol level for "impaired" to .08, so now you have to stop at two drinks instead of drinking a 6-pack at a party and then driving home. Sorry to spoil your fun.

Quote:

That's my main objection with this- it's a bunch of people presuming to tell another group of law-abiding citizens what they can or can't do, because of what some OTHER people are doing.
Yeah, that's how laws work. That's why none of us can make money off insider trading. Those assholes on Wall Street abused it.

Quote:

Beyond that, there's something else at work that's making the mass shooting an attractive way for people to act out- what is that something else? I'm not at all convinced that merely removing guns from the equation is going to prevent that- they'll just find another way to do something similar- homemade bombs, driving through crowds, hijacking airliners, etc.... just to name a few things that have already been done in recent history.
Sure. Banning semi automatic weapons wouldn't have stopped Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Whitman, Sirhan Sirhan, or Timothy McVeigh. On the other hand, The Black September terrorist attack at the 1972 Olympics resulted in 11 hostages and five terrorists being killed. Stepehen Paddock locked himself in a hotel room in Las Vegas, fired 1,100 rounds of ammo, killed 58 people and wounded 422 more all by himself.

Quote:

Anything else is at best treating a symptom.
So, your solution is to do nothing until we figure out what drives some people to kill other people?

DrDeth 09-10-2019 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21851175)
Cliven Bundy and his gang of criminals stole land from the U.S. taxpayer and held off the Feds with guns. Koresh and his criminals defended their freedom to follow a religion that emphasized rapes and polygamy using guns at Waco, Texas. Are these the examples that defenders of the view quoted above would point to?



Nitpick: The version with two commas (or, worse, three!) is simply ungrammatical. Shouldn't all sentences in legal documents that cannot be parsed, that are pure covfefe like junk DNA, be ignored?

...

Want me to list the excesses that the 1st Ad has allowed?

Grammar wasn't the same or as hidebound in 1787.

DrDeth 09-10-2019 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21851604)
Dick Act, 1903. Not that you gotta like it. Also do please note that it all became moot anyway when the Regular Army was founded. 1791, for the record.

If it's real, where do I go to find it? Hint: Only the gun crowd has ever even heard of it. If it ever did become a real thing, it wouldn't be "unorganized" anymore, now would it?

If something doesn't actually exist in the real world, legal fictions notwithstanding, then yes, it is imaginary.
....

Yes, but that provision of Dick act has become obsolete since then, due to WW1 & WW2, the National Gd has become federalized.

In that same Dick act. That proviso is still valid.

No, there are like 70 Million members. Go to any shooting range, you will see members of the unorganized Militia.

eschereal 09-10-2019 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21851604)
If it's real, where do I go to find it? Hint: Only the gun crowd has ever even heard of it. If it ever did become a real thing, it wouldn't be "unorganized" anymore, now would it?

I put “unorganized militia” into my thesaurus and it gave me back “mob”.

ElvisL1ves 09-10-2019 01:53 PM

I get "neighborhood gang". And for "resisting tyranny" I get "killing cops".

That's the right some folks proudly claim to have.

eschereal 09-10-2019 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21851175)
But to defend the Infallible Founding Fathers™®, As seen at this image of the handwritten Bill of Rights, the first comma (which renders the entire Amendment gibberish) looks like just a smudge. (Thanks to eschereal for the link, which worked great in 2015 but now, even with help from the Wayback Machine, requires extra clicks.)

You are mistaken on two points. The first two commas are unmistakably there. The third comma (between “Arms” and “shall”) looks like a single dot (period), as though the scribe has just dipped his pen and rested it there momentarily before resuming writing. I can imagine commas ending up in inappropriate places in the pen-dipping days.

But you are correct that there is no way to parse the sentence with any number of commas that makes it grammatical. Oddly, 2A appears to be the only part of the Constitution that resists clear interpretation; 7A is slightly awkward, but it does resolve with much less difficulty.

On the second point, wherefore dost thou accuse me of link-rot? I posted no links in this thread – can you direct me to my error?

Lumpy 09-10-2019 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschereal (Post 21851882)
I put “unorganized militia” into my thesaurus and it gave me back “mob”.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21851911)
I get "neighborhood gang". And for "resisting tyranny" I get "killing cops".

WHAT thesaurus and reference sites are you using???

eschereal 09-10-2019 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy (Post 21851992)
WHAT thesaurus and reference sites are you using???

The one which says that “well-regulated” is an antonym for “unorganized”. “Militia” itself bears organization within its meaning.

Lumpy 09-10-2019 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschereal (Post 21852004)
The one which says that “well-regulated” is an antonym for “unorganized”. “Militia” itself bears organization within its meaning.

Seriously, I mean what thesaurus are you using? Nothing I've found has anything like that; unless I was <whooshed> that you were just being sarcastic.

ElvisL1ves 09-10-2019 02:52 PM

The Fantasy to Reality Converter.

If you think it's wrong, please show where.

QuickSilver 09-10-2019 02:55 PM

The unalienable right to guns argument goes back to the unalienable right to muskets, crossbows, swords, spears, clubs and rocks. Each in its own time was a weapon of assault and defense. However, there is a huge technological difference when it comes to guns as compared to the weapons that precede it. Especially with the advent of multi-round magazines and rapid fire weapons. Experts testified in federal courts that these kind of weapons are not intended for home/self-defense. Yet, people are buying them in record numbers. Why? Because they have the unalienable right to them? Then why not an unalienable right to much more technologically advanced and lethal weapons? Why not full on machine guns? Why not mortars, grenade and rocket launchers?

Seems to me, society decided to draw a line with respect to civilian access to certain weapons. Thus effectively putting limits on unalienable rights to guns. Limits that did not need to exist at inception of 2A, however, limits that were defined over time as weapon technology advanced.

More to the point of this discussion however, is the fact that since limits do exist on the unalienable rights to some guns. Perhaps those rights are not so unalienable after all? Pro-gun rights activists may not like it, but their rights for guns is NOT unalienable and is subject to limits set by society. Society that is less and less indulgent of the idea that Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness can only be assured by guns in the hands of an armed citizenry.

So maybe lets drop the pretense that your guns are an essential part of this democracy and your personal freedoms. What they are, are the vestiges of a false sense of security blanket that this nation has outgrown.

So, yeah: It no longer matters what the 2nd Amendment says as it has outlived it's purpose. It's well past time it was over-turned.

eschereal 09-10-2019 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 21852048)
It no longer matters what the 2nd Amendment says as it has outlived it's purpose. It's well past time it was over-turned.

It does not have to be “over-turned” per se, it just needs proper interpretation. Its subject matter is entirely plural: all the other amendments use the word “Persons” when it is necessary to make it clear that the rights of individuals are being referenced. 2A does not. It does not even say “the right of people”, it says “the right of the people”, which is a collective noun. If it was intended to say that everyone gets to/should have their own personal arsenal, it would have been more clearly written.

septimus 09-10-2019 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschereal (Post 21851983)
You are mistaken on two points. The first two commas are unmistakably there. The third comma (between “Arms” and “shall”) looks like a single dot (period), as though the scribe has just dipped his pen and rested it there momentarily before resuming writing. I can imagine commas ending up in inappropriate places in the pen-dipping days.

But you are correct that there is no way to parse the sentence with any number of commas that makes it grammatical. Oddly, 2A appears to be the only part of the Constitution that resists clear interpretation; 7A is slightly awkward, but it does resolve with much less difficulty.

On the second point, wherefore dost thou accuse me of link-rot? I posted no links in this thread – can you direct me to my error?

I agree that it is the third "comma" that is most defective. I have no problem with the second comma, but EITHER the first comma OR the third comma OR both renders the sentence ungrammatical, and arguably turns the whole Amendment into a null-and-void covfefe. :cool: (And I'd like to see cites from DrDeth ["Grammar wasn't the same or as hidebound in 1787"] that such hideously placed commas were common in the 18th century.)

As for the link: I think you misinterpreted my remark. :o I was thanking you for the link you posted in 2015 which worked fine when I clicked it four years ago. But when I clicked it again today the .gov asked me for useless clicks. I tried archive.org — I don't know if that made much difference — and still needed extra clicks to get to the image. (Maybe it was my "cockpit error.")

septimus 09-10-2019 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21852167)
As for the link: I think you misinterpreted my remark. :o I was thanking you for the link you posted in 2015 which worked fine when I clicked it four years ago. But when I clicked it again today the .gov asked me for useless clicks. I tried archive.org — I don't know if that made much difference — and still needed extra clicks to get to the image. (Maybe it was my "cockpit error.")

Mea culpa.
Trying your 2015 link again, I see I can get to the high-res image with just 3 or 4 well-chosen clicks. Perhaps I was just a bad clicker earlier today. :o

ralfy 09-10-2019 10:42 PM

Here's what I gathered about 2A:

It had three goals: to support individual ownership of guns (which is based on the natural right to defend oneself), to allow states to form or maintain their own militias (to be used for many tasks, including policing and slave patrols), to allow the government to use the same militias to supplement the standing army (which several wanted to keep small) against various threats (hence, Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, with the latter calling for mandatory military service for males). At least that's I remember from what framers were debating on as it was being drafted.

Even during the Revolutionary War, some military leaders were complaining about a lack of training and equipment among some militias. After the War of 1812, more felt the need for a larger standing army and standardized training of reserves, as they were seeing the same among European counterparts. The same probably applied to the formation of police forces that were separate from military units.

With that, police forces and the National Guard were formed, and the military grew and relied more on reserves as it became more complex (with the growing use of the Navy, the formation of an Air Force, etc.) and mechanized.

In the end, 2A in terms of the second and third reasons became less relevant as the gov't relied on reserves and conscription rather than on militias but is still helpful because it can be used to justify mandatory military service.

That leaves the first point, which if based on the natural right of self-defense exists even without the 2A.

Abatis 09-10-2019 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralfy (Post 21852984)
Here's what I gathered about 2A:

It had three goals: to support individual ownership of guns (which is based on the natural right to defend oneself), to allow states to form or maintain their own militias (to be used for many tasks, including policing and slave patrols), to allow the government to use the same militias to supplement the standing army (which several wanted to keep small) against various threats (hence, Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, with the latter calling for mandatory military service for males). At least that's I remember from what framers were debating on as it was being drafted..

The 2ndA has no militia rights or powers flowing from it. The 2ndA has never been inspected or held to inform on any aspect of militia powers. There is no claimable militia right or power for the people, (see Presser v Illinois*) the states and certainly none for the feds to be found or claimed under the 2ndA. As SCOTUS has a said, the 2ndA has but one action, to restrict the powers of the federal government (US v Cruikshank**).

The only words of the Constitution the Court examines to direct its reasoning and understanding of the organized militia is Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 and laws enacted under those clause's authority (e.g., The Militia Act of 1792, and state militia regulations).

In Houston v Moore, the Court states unequivocally:
  • "The laws which I have referred to amount to a full execution of the powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. They provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasion. They also provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States; leaving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training them according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The "full execution" of militia powers is only to be found in the body of the Constitution; the 2nd Amendment has nothing to offer and is ignored. There are no latent, undefined powers to be found in the 2nd Amendment that would allow it to be interpreted to authorize or protect militia activity of any kind by anyone.

Which as you say, leaves #1.


* Presser v Illinois:
"The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."

** US v Cruikshank:
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, . . . "

Corry El 09-11-2019 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschereal (Post 21851983)

But you are correct that there is no way to parse the sentence with any number of commas that makes it grammatical. Oddly, 2A appears to be the only part of the Constitution that resists clear interpretation; 7A is slightly awkward, but it does resolve with much less difficulty.

On the second point, wherefore dost thou accuse me of link-rot? I posted no links in this thread – can you direct me to my error?

No way to make it the same as common 2019 syntax I agree. Resisting clear interpretation, I don't agree. Which again would include looking at what was elsewhere written at that time, and contemporary or earlier similar type clauses in colonial and state documents. And I still see no validity in the argument to ignore those things because 'that was a long time ago' or 'they were a bunch of old white male racists' or whatever else. No reasonable jurist even solidly on the left of the mainstream is going to try argue that it makes no difference what we can otherwise tell that they meant. Again 'originalism' is a matter of degree, but beyond reason IMO to say 'just try to interpret in a vacuum, ignore all other evidence'.

The relationship between 'militia' and 'people's right' is actually pretty clear in the context. It meant to point to a specific reason the people had the right to bear arms: so the states could organize those already privately armed civilians into militias as necessary, the federal constitution was not voiding that state right. But there's no logical way from those words, in their context of the time, to get to the idea that the people's right to bear depends on the militia actually being called up, or that a feature of 'well regulated' could be to entirely cancel the people's right to bear arms.

The concepts and thought behind the words could well be judged 'obsolete' at this point. Which again might be a reasonable argument to repeal the amendment, not a reasonable argument to ignore it or pretend it says something basically different.

But again I'm always puzzled why this is supposed to be so immediately important when a modest, constitutional (as far as any court precedent to date) measure like a federal ban on the sale of new box magazine semi-automatic rifles (political name 'assault weapons') doesn't have the votes to pass.

Fiddle Peghead 09-11-2019 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XT (Post 21849457)
...as the personal right to keep and bear arms doesn't require the militia part, unless one ignores the actual intent of the authors...

The 2nd Amendment is ONE sentence with ONE meaning. You can't separate it into clauses and then assume the truth of each individual clause. And I don't care how many people come out with how many arguments as a way to get around the fact that clearly the amendment means the people have the right to own arms for the purposes of forming a militia when necessary. That is it, and that is all. It's right there in the #$@#$%@$% amendment! If the founding fathers had meant for other concepts to have meaning in the amendment, that they wrote about elsewhere, they would have included them.

ElvisL1ves 09-11-2019 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead (Post 21853852)
That is it, and that is all. It's right there in the #$@#$%@$% amendment!

There's actually more, elsewhere in the same Constitution, defining the purposes of the militia and how it is to be well-regulated. Those also have to be explained away somehow to backfill under the desired individual-right position.

In no other part of the document, however, did the writers think they had to go so far out of their way to tell us what they meant.

XT 09-11-2019 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead (Post 21853852)
The 2nd Amendment is ONE sentence with ONE meaning. You can't separate it into clauses and then assume the truth of each individual clause. And I don't care how many people come out with how many arguments as a way to get around the fact that clearly the amendment means the people have the right to own arms for the purposes of forming a militia when necessary. That is it, and that is all. It's right there in the #$@#$%@$% amendment! If the founding fathers had meant for other concepts to have meaning in the amendment, that they wrote about elsewhere, they would have included them.

And the fact that it changed, radically, several times in committee really means nothing, because all along it had one meaning from one sentence and one single idea! Brilliant! You've resolved centuries of debate by just reading the thing and expounding your awesome opinion, based on your clear text reading and your feelings! Thanks! Really appreciate you pointing this out! We'll just forget that the founding fathers (or the specific authors of the amendment at least) wrote, extensively on this very subject, since if they REALLY meant something else they would have put that down (well, we'll also forget that they DID...and that what was originally written was modified through several versions in various committees until it was collectively agreed upon as a compromise) exactly that way!

Man, thanks for the input. Definitely was VERY helpful...

XT 09-11-2019 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21853878)
There's actually more, elsewhere in the same Constitution, defining the purposes of the militia and how it is to be well-regulated. Those also have to be explained away somehow to backfill under the desired individual-right position.

In no other part of the document, however, did the writers think they had to go so far out of their way to tell us what they meant.

Oh...you were serious earlier when you brought this up. :smack: I think most folks ignored it in sympathetic embarrassment for you, or thinking you didn't really think this was the killer argument you obviously think it is. Damn...this is awkward!

Thing is, defining what the purpose of and who controlled the militia (the various states) has zero to do with whether they intended the 2nd to be an individual right. No matter which side you are on in this 'debate'. Probably why no one, even on your nominal side, decided to engage you on this point from earlier. Like I said, sympathetic embarrassment. Sort of like how I feel about Fiddle Peghead's latest post. It does underscore the disconnect between those who understand even the basics of this 'debate', and those who, sadly, don't have a clue.

ElvisL1ves 09-11-2019 11:20 AM

What they said has no bearing on what they meant. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

XT 09-11-2019 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21853912)
What they said has no bearing on what they meant. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

Sadly...and as is self evident...you don't. But c'est la vie.

Fiddle Peghead 09-11-2019 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21853878)
In no other part of the document, however, did the writers think they had to go so far out of their way to tell us what they meant.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XT (Post 21853883)
And the fact that it changed, radically, several times in committee really means nothing, because all along it had one meaning from one sentence and one single idea!

[Nonsensical ranting deleted]

Re the bolded part: Either you are have a distinct lack of reading comprehension, or you know very well I never said any such thing. Which is it?

You ignore what was eventually decided upon to be put into words as the 2nd amendment. The Constitution goes into immense details for all manner of things. Cleary if the FFs wanted the populace to be able to own arms for other issues, that could have been included. Yes, the FFs had ideas and they wrote about them extensively. Did I miss the footnotes where these writings were referenced in the Constitution itself?

Fiddle Peghead 09-11-2019 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XT (Post 21853900)
Oh...you were serious earlier when you brought this up. :smack: I think most folks ignored it in sympathetic embarrassment for you, or thinking you didn't really think this was the killer argument you obviously think it is. Damn...this is awkward!

I see you are also violating the standards of Great Debates when responding to Elvis, as you did when responding to me. Why not just stick to the discussion?

Bone 09-11-2019 01:02 PM

Moderating
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead (Post 21854154)
I see you are also violating the standards of Great Debates when responding to Elvis, as you did when responding to me. Why not just stick to the discussion?

Do not junior mod.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead (Post 21853953)
Re the bolded part: Either you are have a distinct lack of reading comprehension, or you know very well I never said any such thing. Which is it?

Calling into question others' reading comprehension is not appropriate for this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 21851911)
I get "neighborhood gang". And for "resisting tyranny" I get "killing cops".

That's the right some folks proudly claim to have.

This is basically trolling. I recommend you dial back your penchant for snideness in all threads going forward as it's destructive to discussion and I have little remaining patience for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XT (Post 21853900)
It does underscore the disconnect between those who understand even the basics of this 'debate', and those who, sadly, don't have a clue.

Dial this back too.

****

How many threads on general second amendment discussions shall we have at one time? One less as I'm closing this one. This other thread was active first so feel free to post there.

[/moderating]


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.