Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-01-2019, 07:52 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,875
I don’t see it.

Take another example: there’s an Amendment that says the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. I like to think I get what that means; I like to think we’re on the same page about it, too.

Imagine that they (a) wrote it that way, but (b) stuck something in front of it. Like, imagine it says: “Women who are more than fifty years old, typically being wiser and more experienced than women who are less than thirty, the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

That’d be weird, but I wouldn’t actually give a crap about the part in front. I mean, I can still see the part where it declares stuff about the rights of citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older; it’s still right there, y’know? It doesn’t limit itself to women; it doesn’t draw a line at fifty, or thirty. I just see where it says things about citizens of the United States who are eighteen years or older, and I still see it flatly putting that out there even for men in their twenties even though it first yammers on for some reason about women who are over fifty.
  #102  
Old 09-01-2019, 09:00 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,198
I think we're in agreement. I said in an earlier post "My understanding of our current gun laws is that they are based on the theory that the right to own firearms is a right held by individuals, not a right held by members of a group, even if it's a group of which everyone is automatically a member."

I feel that the first half in the second amendment - A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State - is essentially meaningless. The meaningful part of the amendment is the second half - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed - which stand fully on its own without needing or being modified by the first half.

But some people in this thread are arguing that the first part does have some legal weight and does affect the meaning of the second half.
  #103  
Old 09-01-2019, 11:37 PM
Jay Z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 32
If the militia part of the clause is essentially meaningless... then it would not have been included in the Constitution. Since it is included in the Constitution, the (heavy) burden of proof is on others to provide reasons to discard it.

Had it NOT been included, it would be much more difficult to believe that ANY regulations against arms were allowed. But they have been. You are not allowed to have a warhead in your backyard. You are not allowed to collect enough arms to overthrow the government, then proceed to do so. Et cetera.

Suppose "well regulated" was interpreted to mean that citizens were allowed to keep one rifle and one pistol, in good working order. If yours broke down, you could replace them with new ones. You were even expected to do so. Perhaps they were issued you, along with free training in how to use them and shooting practice. But no more than one rifle and one pistol per citizens. More advanced weapons are kept in the armory.

Is this infringement on the right to keep and bear arms? Without it, yes. With it, likely not. The citizens have a right to the arms, because of the well regulated militia, but not in excess of what is required, or weaponry that would be poorly regulated in the hands of every person.
  #104  
Old 09-02-2019, 12:07 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Z View Post
If the militia part of the clause is essentially meaningless... then it would not have been included in the Constitution. Since it is included in the Constitution, the (heavy) burden of proof is on others to provide reasons to discard it.
I’m not looking to discard it in general; I’ll look right at it when it happens to be relevant, even though I’ll look elsewhere to answer other questions.

Like, if someone asks me whether the Constitution mentions that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, I’ll look to see whether there’s a part that helpfully says The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed; and, upon spotting that, I’ll relay what I see there — but, oh, rest assured: if someone instead asks me if the Constitution mentions that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state? I’d then look right at the part that helpfully says stuff about a Well-Regulated Militia and the Security Of A Free State: it’s still there; I haven’t discarded it; it’s irrelevant so long as I’m being asked unrelated questions, but it’ll get my full attention the very moment I’m asked about it.
  #105  
Old 09-02-2019, 12:55 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Z View Post
If the militia part of the clause is essentially meaningless... then it would not have been included in the Constitution.
The Constitution was written by a bunch of regular human beings not handed down from God. There's no reason to assume it's a perfect document. Hell, they spelled Pennsylvania wrong and they were in that state at the time.

That said, I've already agreed that you can make an argument that the correct interpretation of the second amendment is that the right to own guns is associated with membership in a militia. But you can equally well interpret it as a right held by all individuals regardless of militia membership. And when two equal interpretations are available, I favor the one that gives broader rights.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 09-02-2019 at 12:58 AM.
  #106  
Old 09-02-2019, 05:48 AM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Let's look at what is being proposed:
a) the framers of the 2nd Amendment were "giving back" to the citizens a conditioned, qualified and restrained fragment of a right the people never parted with . . .
AND
b) the states ratified that Amendment knowing it could be interpreted to allow the federal government to decide WHO should be the approved arms bearers within and for their state and establish later, using undefined power, under what conditions the federal government would recognize the state's citizens as having a right to arms -- and enforce that with federal law that would work to disarm a state's citizens the fed's deemed unworthy . . .
That's the BS you need to believe to "interpret" the 2ndA as qualifying / conditioning the right to arms of the people upon militia attachment -- that the feds get to decide the criteria of.

Absolutely absurd.
  #107  
Old 09-02-2019, 05:57 AM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Here's the real deal . . .

The first half (declaratory clause) is an inactive, dependent statement of principle, a maxim of our republic. The wording of the amendment represents and conforms with the varying proposals from the states (that Madison had to edit / rework) which mirrored the provisions in their own constitutions.

In their constitution's bills of rights, the states lumped themes with similar objects (intents) together. Most of the states had a provision that had the over-all intent of binding / restraining government powers of force.

These provisions typically had three prongs:
a) The citizens retained the right to arms
b) standing armies in time of peace were dangerous to liberty and ought not be maintained
c) the military should always be subordinate to the civil authority.
Here are some examples of state provisions that were in force during the enactment of the federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power. . . .

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State—and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

1790 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

The separate prongs of these directives were never considered interdependent (that all must exist for any to be actionable, i.e., that if a standing army does exist, the right to arms of the people doesn't).

Actually, it is clear that the standing army declarative clauses were merely legally inert declarations of principle. It isn't binding a state's powers to create a standing army, nor can it be interpreted to prevent the federal government from exercising its supreme and preemptive Art I, § 8, cl's 11, 12, 13 & 14 powers.

Considering that the wording of the 2nd Amendment was drawn from similar provisions and the framers were accustomed to such constructions, one can't really say that the 2nd Amendment is unique or clumsy, ambiguous or confusing, just because it employs grammatical structures we are now unfamiliar with (an ablative or normative absolute phrase / clause).

The declaration in the federal 2nd Amendment, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers each represented the same sentiment . . .

The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim of Republics, going back to Aristotle; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic (national government) tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

So, without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause can at best only be said to be a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists, and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right. It only states one reason -- the political one -- (surprised face) for why the fully retained right of the people to keep and bear arms, is being forever shielded from federal government interference.

.

Last edited by Abatis; 09-02-2019 at 05:59 AM.
  #108  
Old 09-02-2019, 09:23 AM
nicky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 566
Nope. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is that the defence of the state should be by a militia not a federal standing army and citizens weapons are just a means to that end. The militia has been comprehensively overtaken by events leaving the right to bear arms as a sort of logical zombie clause that can’t convincingly prove it’s alive but can’t quite be killed either .
  #109  
Old 09-02-2019, 09:42 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,586
The Founding Fathers were men of their time. They were not soothsayers. Despite their near infallible wisdom - as is so generously foisted on them for often all too convenient motives - they could not, and did not, have the ability to predict the outcome of all of their ideals. That's not necessarily a failing on their part; they were merely humans, after all. But, if they are even half as wise as they are credited of being, observing the state of gun culture in American society today, I believe they would offer a very different version of the second amendment and its interpretation. And if we were half as wise as we'd like to think we are, we'd fucking realize that "unalienable rights" with respect to guns are bullshit now. Changing them does not entail the entire destruction of the constitution or the bill of rights. And while those who oppose abolishing RCBA will rend and cry to the heavens, there is no reason for any of us to think any assistance is coming from that direction. It's time to exercise some wisdom of our own, in our own time, and get rid of that which no longer serves us. It seems to me, the wisdom of the FF has allowed for that as well.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #110  
Old 09-02-2019, 12:57 PM
Jay Z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The Constitution was written by a bunch of regular human beings not handed down from God. There's no reason to assume it's a perfect document. Hell, they spelled Pennsylvania wrong and they were in that state at the time.

That said, I've already agreed that you can make an argument that the correct interpretation of the second amendment is that the right to own guns is associated with membership in a militia. But you can equally well interpret it as a right held by all individuals regardless of militia membership. And when two equal interpretations are available, I favor the one that gives broader rights.
Over time, the Constitution HAS taken more of a "handed down by God" aspect. May not be right, but I have seen it with my own eyes.

As far as the militia stuff goes, it seems to me that there was either an affinity for it, or the Founders thought it would work better than it did. A militia is completely ineffective as a fighting force. It's why we have the largest effective standing army in the world. The militia never, ever worked.

Rights conflict with each other. People were required to turn in their guns in the old Western towns. It made sense for people to have guns out in the frontier, out of town, when you might have to be your own law, or protect yourself from animal predators. Guns in town were more likely to be used to rob the town or shoot someone else in a drunken argument. They are two different life situations. Controlling the gun population in the town made the town better, made more people want to move to the town. The gun control of the town did not extend outside its borders, rules were different outside the town.

It's clear that 2A meant that some arms were allowed. Did the founders mean that the right to bear arms was absolute, it should trump every other right? You may have the right to free speech. But I can own private property, individually or with a group, and prevent you from setting foot on that property and exercising your free speech right. If the right to bear arms is more absolute, if the rulings are that jurisdictions cannot assemble and make any law controlling the right to bear arms even to a small extent, that is a different matter. Obviously in the old West no one went to the Supremes and sued based on their right to bearing arms should trump all jurisdictions. Today they are doing that. You'd be allowed to have your guns in town, everyone would, the robbery rate and drunking shooting rate would skyrocket.
  #111  
Old 09-02-2019, 02:30 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,198
It's always fun to find somebody who preaches a belief in an absolute right of property and an absolute right of carrying guns and asking them if a property owner can forbid people carrying guns on his property.
  #112  
Old 09-02-2019, 02:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post
The people who wrote those were also cool with slavery.
That's not true, slightly less than half were 'cool with slavery", but a compromise had to be made.



If you read the history of the 2nd, the "militia" clause was added afterwards, the more to make sure the USA didnt have a standing Army and each state was allowed a militia. The Founding fathers assumed this militia would be made of men who owned their own muskets.
  #113  
Old 09-02-2019, 09:03 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Jefferson would be counting to 1000 if he was alive to see the feds raiding our communities and mass rounding up our people.
  #114  
Old 09-02-2019, 09:11 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by obbn View Post
Take for example the 2nd Amendment. If we could ask them, what exactly did you mean by well regulated militia? Do you consider modern weapons to be covered under your intent?
Almost certainly madison would seeing as he drafted the damn thing with the intent the people could protect themselves from the feds.
  #115  
Old 09-02-2019, 09:17 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The opening clause of the 2nd amendment is not ignored. Well regulated at the time meant something like "in good working order" and a militia was all of the adult males of a territory that could be called on to serve in times of war. Those who insist otherwise are either ignorant or being tendentious.
If you're going to use the 18th century definition of "Well regulated", you have to use the 18th century definition of "arms" (not to mention "bear", which I'd think would toss concealed-carry out the window). Conversely, if you're going to use the 21st century meaning of "arms", then don't take umbrage with those wishing to use the 21st century meaning of "well regulated".

I'd like to see what they'd say about porn.

Last edited by E-DUB; 09-02-2019 at 09:18 PM. Reason: spelling correction
  #116  
Old 09-02-2019, 09:38 PM
Taesahnim's Avatar
Taesahnim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Over there. No, further.
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by obbn View Post
Hello Everyone,

This is of course politely fantasy and I wasn't sure which category to put this in, so GD it is. Let say that we have somehow perfected time travel and for kicks went back to the founding of our Nation and brought the Founding Fathers to present day. Would their opinions on current day issues matter?
I don't know whether they would be furious or broken-hearted. Or both. We have allowed the federal government to morph into exactly what they were trying to prevent from happening.
  #117  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:21 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
If you're going to use the 18th century definition of "Well regulated", you have to use the 18th century definition of "arms" (not to mention "bear", which I'd think would toss concealed-carry out the window). Conversely, if you're going to use the 21st century meaning of "arms", then don't take umbrage with those wishing to use the 21st century meaning of "well regulated".
Again - "well regulated" applies to the militia, not the arms.

You could, I suppose, apply a different definition to "militia". But the Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, no matter what you say about the militia. So whatever you wind up with as a "well regulated militia", the people have to have a right to keep and bear arms so you can wind up with it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #118  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:33 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Again - "well regulated" applies to the militia, not the arms.
This keeps being needlessly trotted out. Why don't y'all wait until someone actually says "well-regulated guns" before you trot it out again, o.k.?
  #119  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:59 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,858
Amazing how these discussions about the founders invariably revolve around guns. I'm of the opinion that no person has ever changed his mind about gun control, just as no person has ever changed his mind about abortion. Arguments about guns always generate more heat than light and we find ourselves in alternate realities that cannot be bridged. With that in mind, I'm sure that some will disagree with everything I write but that's to be expected.

My two cents:
I don't care if the founders would be for or against gun control if they were reanimated today. They lived in different times. Madison never gave a thought to whether his children would be murdered in school, Jefferson did not worry about attending a theater and looking for the exits in case a mad gunman started blazing fire. If they had, the 2nd would look much different, if it existed at all.

The founders were not ones to waste words. In my opinion, a correct interpretation of the 2nd is that the militia (National Guard) has the right to bear arms. I don't buy the notion that "well regulated" means "in good working order", that's one of those things that gets repeated because people think it's true and people think it's true because it gets repeated. I also don't buy that "the militia" meant all white males, even in the old days the militia was something you joined and something that was regulated.

The notion that we need guns to rein in or overthrow a corrupt government is silly. Poland and East Germany got rid of their communist masters without firing a shot. Armed insurgents with the help of foreign powers have not ousted the despotic Syrian regime. Of all the things that make governments fall, weaponry isn't one of them.

There are weapons that were made for the purpose of killing lots of people quickly. There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have such weapons.

People who have unstable mental conditions, certain criminal histories, or who have proven to be a danger to others have no right to own guns. Opposition to background checks or waiting periods is simply foolishness.

Other countries have video games and mental health problems. No other nation has so many mass murders. I believe guns are the reason.

People who think that we can't lift a finger on guns until every other means of murder have been eliminated are morons. Yes you can come at me with a knife, but I've got a lot more of a chance than if you come at me with a gun. And if you compare accidental shootings with drownings in swimming pools, you're batshit crazy.

Last edited by BobLibDem; 09-03-2019 at 11:00 AM.
  #120  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:04 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Again - "well regulated" applies to the militia, not the arms.

You could, I suppose, apply a different definition to "militia". But the Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, no matter what you say about the militia. So whatever you wind up with as a "well regulated militia", the people have to have a right to keep and bear arms so you can wind up with it.

Regards,
Shodan
I think it's fair to say that people in America are "well armed". In your opinion, do we have a "well regulated militia"? If so, in what way is it "well regulated", effective, and to what purpose?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #121  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:11 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Amazing how these discussions about the founders invariably revolve around guns. I'm of the opinion that no person has ever changed his mind about gun control, just as no person has ever changed his mind about abortion. Arguments about guns always generate more heat than light and we find ourselves in alternate realities that cannot be bridged. With that in mind, I'm sure that some will disagree with everything I write but that's to be expected.

My two cents:
I don't care if the founders would be for or against gun control if they were reanimated today. They lived in different times. Madison never gave a thought to whether his children would be murdered in school, Jefferson did not worry about attending a theater and looking for the exits in case a mad gunman started blazing fire. If they had, the 2nd would look much different, if it existed at all.

The founders were not ones to waste words. In my opinion, a correct interpretation of the 2nd is that the militia (National Guard) has the right to bear arms. I don't buy the notion that "well regulated" means "in good working order", that's one of those things that gets repeated because people think it's true and people think it's true because it gets repeated. I also don't buy that "the militia" meant all white males, even in the old days the militia was something you joined and something that was regulated.

The notion that we need guns to rein in or overthrow a corrupt government is silly. Poland and East Germany got rid of their communist masters without firing a shot. Armed insurgents with the help of foreign powers have not ousted the despotic Syrian regime. Of all the things that make governments fall, weaponry isn't one of them.

There are weapons that were made for the purpose of killing lots of people quickly. There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have such weapons.

People who have unstable mental conditions, certain criminal histories, or who have proven to be a danger to others have no right to own guns. Opposition to background checks or waiting periods is simply foolishness.

Other countries have video games and mental health problems. No other nation has so many mass murders. I believe guns are the reason.

People who think that we can't lift a finger on guns until every other means of murder have been eliminated are morons. Yes you can come at me with a knife, but I've got a lot more of a chance than if you come at me with a gun. And if you compare accidental shootings with drownings in swimming pools, you're batshit crazy.
Well said. But I've no doubt somebody is about to bring up "natural rights" as a way to reducing your argument to something akin to neo-fascism. You know, like in Canada.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #122  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:08 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,198
My personal opinion is that the second amendment was intended to placate southerners and westerners. There were concerns that the new federal government, based in Philadelphia or New York, would not help in cases of Indian uprisings or slave revolts. The states wanted to retain the option of fielding their own local forces if the national government refused to send troops.
  #123  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:31 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I think it's fair to say that people in America are "well armed". In your opinion, do we have a "well regulated militia"? If so, in what way is it "well regulated", effective, and to what purpose?
Yes, the militia is well regulated, in the way the Constitution says. If you think it is not, then by all means pressure the government to change that so as to fulfill their Constitutional duty to make sure that we do. Keep in mind that whether or not it is well-regulated does not affect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because the Second Amendment does not say that the right can be infringed if the militia is not operating as it should.

If the militia is not working as it should, that's bad. But the Second Amendment says that it can't work as it should, however defined, unless the people's right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.

Regards,
Shodan
  #124  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:33 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Jefferson did not worry about attending a theater and looking for the exits in case a mad gunman started blazing fire.
Lincoln should have, though.

Regards,
Shodan
  #125  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:34 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yes, the militia is well regulated, in the way the Constitution says.
And in what way is that?
  #126  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:39 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,143
It's funny to hear people talk about the intentions of the Constitution as if these are facts rather than just what a handful of relatively recent political appointees happen to have said.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-03-2019 at 12:42 PM.
  #127  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:52 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yes, the militia is well regulated, in the way the Constitution says. If you think it is not, then by all means pressure the government to change that so as to fulfill their Constitutional duty to make sure that we do. Keep in mind that whether or not it is well-regulated does not affect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because the Second Amendment does not say that the right can be infringed if the militia is not operating as it should.

If the militia is not working as it should, that's bad. But the Second Amendment says that it can't work as it should, however defined, unless the people's right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.

Regards,
Shodan
In service of what? You forgot to mention.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 09-03-2019 at 12:53 PM.
  #128  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:52 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I'm of the opinion that no person has ever changed his mind about gun control, just as no person has ever changed his mind about abortion.
If I show you that you're wrong, would that cause you to re-evaluate any of the other things that you're convinced about?
  #129  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:03 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Z View Post
Over time, the Constitution HAS taken more of a "handed down by God" aspect. May not be right, but I have seen it with my own eyes.

As far as the militia stuff goes, it seems to me that there was either an affinity for it, or the Founders thought it would work better than it did. A militia is completely ineffective as a fighting force. It's why we have the largest effective standing army in the world. The militia never, ever worked.

Rights conflict with each other. People were required to turn in their guns in the old Western towns. It made sense for people to have guns out in the frontier, out of town, when you might have to be your own law, or protect yourself from animal predators. Guns in town were more likely to be used to rob the town or shoot someone else in a drunken argument. They are two different life situations. Controlling the gun population in the town made the town better, made more people want to move to the town. The gun control of the town did not extend outside its borders, rules were different outside the town.

It's clear that 2A meant that some arms were allowed. Did the founders mean that the right to bear arms was absolute, it should trump every other right? You may have the right to free speech. But I can own private property, individually or with a group, and prevent you from setting foot on that property and exercising your free speech right. If the right to bear arms is more absolute, if the rulings are that jurisdictions cannot assemble and make any law controlling the right to bear arms even to a small extent, that is a different matter. Obviously in the old West no one went to the Supremes and sued based on their right to bearing arms should trump all jurisdictions. Today they are doing that. You'd be allowed to have your guns in town, everyone would, the robbery rate and drunking shooting rate would skyrocket.
Until the 14th amendment the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government and states were free to establish churches, quarter soldiers, and regulate guns as they saw fit. Most of the the Western town's antigun laws were passed during a period before case law clarifying that the Bill of Rights did apply to them.
They still only apply to governments so private entities can restrict any rights they want to.
  #130  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:04 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
...

The founders were not ones to waste words. In my opinion, a correct interpretation of the 2nd is that the militia (National Guard) has the right to bear arms. I don't buy the notion that "well regulated" means "in good working order", that's one of those things that gets repeated because people think it's true and people think it's true because it gets repeated. I also don't buy that "the militia" meant all white males, even in the old days the militia was something you joined and something that was regulated. ....

Other countries have video games and mental health problems. No other nation has so many mass murders. I believe guns are the reason.

People who think that we can't lift a finger on guns until every other means of murder have been eliminated are morons. Yes you can come at me with a knife, but I've got a lot more of a chance than if you come at me with a gun. And if you compare accidental shootings with drownings in swimming pools, you're batshit crazy.
The National Gd would drive the Founders crazy. It is now a part of the Army, exactly what the Founders didnt want. So the modern national guard is the exact opposite of a Militia.

Militias were mostly raised by states, and a few states still have them. Militias were also raised by some large cities and a few individuals.

The Militia act did make all able bodies men part of the Militia.

Other nations dont have the media that glorifies the shooters like we do. Peer reviewed published studies by noted sociologists have shown the in America, the media is what is causing the mass shootings. I have cited them several times.


How about the 500000 Americans who die every year from smoking, 50000 of them by second hand smoke? And tobacco isnt protected by the Constitution.

Last edited by DrDeth; 09-03-2019 at 01:06 PM.
  #131  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:34 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
If I show you that you're wrong, would that cause you to re-evaluate any of the other things that you're convinced about?
Nope. I don't believe I am wrong and there is nothing that you could tell me that would change my mind. Why should I be the only person to change his mind about gun control?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post

Other nations dont have the media that glorifies the shooters like we do. Peer reviewed published studies by noted sociologists have shown the in America, the media is what is causing the mass shootings. I have cited them several times.


How about the 500000 Americans who die every year from smoking, 50000 of them by second hand smoke? And tobacco isnt protected by the Constitution.
The media causes them? Hardy har har. I don't think the shooters are glorified at all. Their names and faces get attention, just as Booth and Oswald did. When their motivation becomes known, such as the racist attacks inspired by one Donald J. T***p, that becomes public. But to say they are glorified is an overstatement.

I think it's a logical fallacy to state that nothing can or should be done about gun violence as long as other means of death are possible.
  #132  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:43 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
...


The media causes them? Hardy har har. I don't think the shooters are glorified at all. Their names and faces get attention, just as Booth and Oswald did. When their motivation becomes known, such as the racist attacks inspired by one Donald J. T***p, that becomes public. But to say they are glorified is an overstatement.

I think it's a logical fallacy to state that nothing can or should be done about gun violence as long as other means of death are possible.
Yes, and that;s what they want. They are suicides that want to make a name for themselves, and the media give it to them.

It's what we call "science".


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...rJRTObuojybVyc

The Media Is an Accomplice in School Shootings


School shootings are a contagion. And the media are consistent accomplices in most every one of them.

There’s really no useful debate on the point. The consensus of social scientists since David Phillips’ groundbreaking work in 1974 is that highly publicized stories of deviant and dangerous behavior influences copycat incidents. Phillips’ and scores of subsequent studies showed, for example, that suicide rates spike in the week after an inappropriately publicized celebrity suicide. Contrast this trend with no increase in suicides in the week following a media strike that unintentionally suppresses such coverage.

The same is true of school massacres. On Groundhog Day, Feb 2, 1996 a 14-year-old boy walked into his Moses Lake, Washington, Junior High School algebra class and started shooting. He killed his teacher, two classmates and severely wounded another student. Subsequent media coverage obsessed over the color of his clothes, his insidious planning and the inventory of his arsenal. In addition, they practically offered a how-to guide for concealing and deploying weapons in a coat. But what got the most attention was the fact that after shooting his teacher, he delivered a line from the Stephen King novel Rage with charismatic panache. Suddenly, the invisible adolescent was a cultural icon. Within a week, another shooting occurred that clearly echoed that of Feb 2. Then another on February 19. Another on March 11. Yet another on March 13. Along with other similarities, more than one of the apparent copycats also cited King’s novel as a creative resource.


https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/com...HzwQqHI2r9fjYM

https://psmag.com/news/does-the-medi...mass-shootings
A growing body of research suggests that increasingly intense media coverage of mass shootings is partly responsible for their acceleration in the United States...With this in mind, it’s safe to posit that increased exposure to media reports surrounding mass murders have precipitated the rise of copycat killers. There seems to be a correlation between the rise in mass murders and structural expansions in the media with the emergence of the 24-hour cable news cycle

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296697/
A mass shooting is a complex and destructive act that occurs as a result of many factors. One factor that is relevant to the spread of mass shootings and other “contagious” behaviors is generalized imitation. In instances of mass shootings, the media appear largely responsible for providing the model to imitate. Although there are a variety of strategies that could function in tandem to alter the likelihood of a mass shooting, changing the way the media report mass shootings is one important step in preventing and reducing imitation of these acts. Furthermore, it is likely that media-prompted imitation extends beyond mass shootings. A media effect has been shown with suicide, is implied in mass shootings, and may play a role in other extreme events such as home-grown terrorism and racially motivated crimes.

The responsibility for these acts does not reside with the media, but the media are an important vector for the spread of such behaviors.
  #133  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:53 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
In service of what? You forgot to mention.
Maybe I don't understand your question. Having a militia is in service of the security of a free State. The right to keep and bear arms is so we can have a militia.

TRtKaBA is, according to the Constitution, a necessary pre-condition for a well-regulated militia. If the militia isn't acting to secure a free state, then it should be fixed so it does. But, again according to the Constitution, it can't be fixed by infringing on tRtKaBA.

Maybe you don't agree. That's fine, but then according to the Constitution, you're wrong. TRtKaBA is necessary by definition. You need to convince a large majority that you are right and the Constitution is wrong. That can happen - slavery is an example of how people figured out the Constitution was wrong, and fixed it. But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You don't get to say it's wrong all by yourself, or even with a lot of other people. You need enough other people to amend the Constitution.

Regards,
Shodan
  #134  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:53 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
How about the 500000 Americans who die every year from smoking, 50000 of them by second hand smoke? And tobacco isnt protected by the Constitution.
It's their "natural right". Would you deny them their natural rights? This entire thread is about the inherently inviolable nature of natural rights, which do not require Constitutional protection. Except when they do. And those that are explicitly protected are of the same intrinsic value, unchanging, despite march of time and social progress, immune from revision.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 09-03-2019 at 01:55 PM.
  #135  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
It's their "natural right". Would you deny them their natural rights? This entire thread is about the inherently inviolable nature of natural rights, which do not require Constitutional protection. ....
No it's not. And the "natural right" is the right to defend yourself as SCOTUS has made clear.
  #136  
Old 09-03-2019, 02:06 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Nope. I don't believe I am wrong and there is nothing that you could tell me that would change my mind. Why should I be the only person to change his mind about gun control?
That's kind of the point. You asserted that no one has changed their mind. I asked if I demonstrated that people have changed their mind, would you re-evaluate. You've answered in the negative. It's your prerogative to have a faith based position, of course.
  #137  
Old 09-03-2019, 02:14 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Maybe I don't understand your question. Having a militia is in service of the security of a free State. The right to keep and bear arms is so we can have a militia.

TRtKaBA is, according to the Constitution, a necessary pre-condition for a well-regulated militia. If the militia isn't acting to secure a free state, then it should be fixed so it does. But, again according to the Constitution, it can't be fixed by infringing on tRtKaBA.
In what way does the current armed populace (a well-regulated militia, according to the Const. and you) function in service of the free State? What efforts have been made to maintain it regulation and readiness since the inception of the TRtKaBA? What steps are being considered by its supporters to fix and maintain it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Maybe you don't agree. That's fine, but then according to the Constitution, you're wrong. TRtKaBA is necessary by definition. You need to convince a large majority that you are right and the Constitution is wrong. That can happen - slavery is an example of how people figured out the Constitution was wrong, and fixed it. But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You don't get to say it's wrong all by yourself, or even with a lot of other people. You need enough other people to amend the Constitution.

Regards,
Shodan
I hope to see TRtKaBA significantly restricted or abolished in my lifetime. Seems the numbers of people who agree with that position are growing in size and vigor.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #138  
Old 09-03-2019, 02:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
In what way does the current armed populace (a well-regulated militia, according to the Const. and you) function in service of the free State? What efforts have been made to maintain it regulation and readiness since the inception of the TRtKaBA? What steps are being considered by its supporters to fix and maintain it?



I hope to see TRtKaBA significantly restricted or abolished in my lifetime. Seems the numbers of people who agree with that position are growing in size and vigor.
They protect their own homes and families.

That would mean abolishing the 2nd Ad for no good purpose.
  #139  
Old 09-03-2019, 02:31 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No it's not. And the "natural right" is the right to defend yourself as SCOTUS has made clear.
And there it is. Thank you for saying so, on the record.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #140  
Old 09-03-2019, 02:34 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They protect their own homes and families.
From who?... Ze Germans?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #141  
Old 09-03-2019, 02:34 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Lincoln should have, though.
Too soon?
  #142  
Old 09-03-2019, 02:46 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They protect their own homes and families.

That would mean abolishing the 2nd Ad for no good purpose.
Some people keep and bear arms in order to protect their own homes and families. Other people keep and bear arms in order to threaten other people's homes and families.

Reasonable opponents of the Second Amendment feel that repealing it would significantly reduce the second group and that's a good purpose.
  #143  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:16 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
That's kind of the point. You asserted that no one has changed their mind. I asked if I demonstrated that people have changed their mind, would you re-evaluate. You've answered in the negative. It's your prerogative to have a faith based position, of course.
Let's say with rare exception nobody changes their mind about gun control. Just like with rare exception, nobody changes their mind about abortion.
  #144  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:18 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
In what way does the current armed populace (a well-regulated militia, according to the Const. and you) function in service of the free State? What efforts have been made to maintain it regulation and readiness since the inception of the TRtKaBA? What steps are being considered by its supporters to fix and maintain it?
The Constitution doesn't say anything about the militia besides
  1. We need it, and
  2. the people have to have the right to keep and bear arms if we are to have one.
If you are concerned that the militia as it currently stands isn't securing the freedom of the state, by all means raise your concerns with your elected officials. Keep in mind that, according to the Constitution, you cannot address whatever problems you see with the militia by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Quote:
I hope to see TRtKaBA significantly restricted or abolished in my lifetime. Seems the numbers of people who agree with that position are growing in size and vigor.
Get back to us when you have a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, or two-thirds of the state legislatures, and the approval of 38 states.

Regards,
Shodan
  #145  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:22 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The Constitution doesn't say anything about the militia besides
  1. We need it, and
  2. the people have to have the right to keep and bear arms if we are to have one.
Do please read the whole thing sometime, will you? Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:
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.
See? They fucking said what it's for.
  #146  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:24 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,162
First you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yes, the militia is well regulated, in the way the Constitution says.
then you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The Constitution doesn't say anything about the militia besides
  1. We need it, and
  2. the people have to have the right to keep and bear arms if we are to have one.
Which is it?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 09-03-2019 at 03:26 PM.
  #147  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:25 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Reasonable opponents of the Second Amendment feel that repealing it would significantly reduce the second group and that's a good purpose.
It would also force the pro-gun arguments to stand on their own merit. Also a good purpose.
  #148  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:47 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Do please read the whole thing sometime, will you? Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:

See? They fucking said what it's for.
I should have said the Second Amendment doesn't say. But still, if you are concerned that the militia will not be available for the purposes you mention, then you ought to raise those concerns with the government. Also consider if "we need to restrict gun ownership so they are better equipped" sounds like it makes sense, if you are hoping to use that argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
First you say:
Quote:
Yes, the militia is well regulated, in the way the Constitution says.
then you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
The Constitution doesn't say anything about the militia besides
We need it, and
the people have to have the right to keep and bear arms if we are to have one.
Which is it?
Did one didn't you understand?

Regards,
Shodan
  #149  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:55 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
From who?... Ze Germans?
Robbers, home invasions, murderers, etc. Criminals.
  #150  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:02 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Some people keep and bear arms in order to protect their own homes and families. Other people keep and bear arms in order to threaten other people's homes and families.

Reasonable opponents of the Second Amendment feel that repealing it would significantly reduce the second group and that's a good purpose.
True. There are 300,000,000 guns in the uSA. About 10000 are used form murder.

So you'd ban that 299,990,000 to solve that 10000.


And it wont. Gun control has never worked in the USA.

And why do you want gun control?

1, to reduce suicides (biggest potion of gun deaths)? Well, I think suicide is both a tragedy and a right, and Japans seems to have no problem keeping it's suicide rate well about the USAs with no guns. So, that's a crappy reason. Lets get some more counseling and such out there.

2. To reduce Murder? Ok, but you see the violent crime rate has been going down for some time, while the number of guns owned is increasing. Hmmm. Maybe a few more reasonable restrictions, like on straw man sales might help, sure, why not?

3. To reduce mass killings? As I have proven, mass shootings are a product of the media, not guns. So, then, we'd have to get rid of the 1st Ad for that. Are you in favor?
Reply

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 07:59 AM.

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