Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:08 AM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381

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.

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-09-2019 at 12:11 AM.
  #2  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:39 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,484
We have an active thread on this subject.
  #3  
Old 09-09-2019, 04:23 AM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
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.

Last edited by Abatis; 09-09-2019 at 04:24 AM.
  #4  
Old 09-09-2019, 07:40 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,715
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.
  #5  
Old 09-09-2019, 09:24 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
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.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #6  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:03 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
...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.
  #7  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:11 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
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.
  #8  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:12 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
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

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #9  
Old 09-09-2019, 07:47 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,266
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.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #10  
Old 09-09-2019, 08:00 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
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.
  #11  
Old 09-09-2019, 08:13 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,003
  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
  #12  
Old 09-09-2019, 08:30 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
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.

Last edited by Cheesesteak; 09-09-2019 at 08:31 AM.
  #13  
Old 09-09-2019, 08:45 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
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

Last edited by Shodan; 09-09-2019 at 08:49 AM.
  #14  
Old 09-09-2019, 02:55 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
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?
  #15  
Old 09-09-2019, 09:37 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
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.
  #16  
Old 09-09-2019, 09:31 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
  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.
  #17  
Old 09-09-2019, 09:59 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
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
  #18  
Old 09-09-2019, 03:40 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
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!
  #19  
Old 09-09-2019, 04:02 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,541
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. 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.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 09-09-2019 at 04:04 PM.
  #20  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:00 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
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.
  #21  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:11 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,715
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.
  #22  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:17 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
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.”
  #23  
Old 09-09-2019, 06:23 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
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.
  #24  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:16 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
  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?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #25  
Old 09-09-2019, 02:24 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
  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.
  #26  
Old 09-09-2019, 02:34 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
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?!?

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 View Post

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.
  #27  
Old 09-09-2019, 09:06 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,533
Or ignored as outdated.
When was the last time Congress granted a letter of Marque and Reprisal?

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #28  
Old 09-09-2019, 06:22 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
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.
  #29  
Old 09-09-2019, 09:27 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,421
I agree, the 2nd Amendment is totally outdated and serves little purpose today. That being said, good luck repealing it.
  #30  
Old 09-09-2019, 10:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,587
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.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-09-2019 at 10:53 AM.
  #31  
Old 09-09-2019, 11:47 AM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,604
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?
  #32  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:39 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
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 ...
  #33  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:51 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #34  
Old 09-09-2019, 02:37 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
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.
  #35  
Old 09-09-2019, 02:57 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
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.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-09-2019 at 02:57 PM.
  #36  
Old 09-09-2019, 03:15 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
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.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #37  
Old 09-09-2019, 03:32 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
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.
  #38  
Old 09-09-2019, 03:07 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
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."
  #39  
Old 09-09-2019, 06:32 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
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.
  #40  
Old 09-09-2019, 06:40 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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?
  #41  
Old 09-10-2019, 09:15 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
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.
  #42  
Old 09-10-2019, 12:22 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
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?
  #43  
Old 09-10-2019, 09:36 AM
Joeu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2
Re: Well-regulated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
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
  #44  
Old 09-10-2019, 11:55 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeu View Post
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.
  #45  
Old 09-09-2019, 02:23 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,003
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
  #46  
Old 09-09-2019, 02:35 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
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.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 09-09-2019 at 02:36 PM.
  #47  
Old 09-09-2019, 03:38 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
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
  #48  
Old 09-09-2019, 07:48 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
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.
  #49  
Old 09-09-2019, 05:26 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
"Supremacy clause" would have been a better answer.
  #50  
Old 09-09-2019, 05:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
"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
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.

 
Copyright © 2017