# At The Demonstartion Against The NRA. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805 "2018-04-20T18:27:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/261 "2018-04-24T20:40:17Z")
> [@XT](#): > > … It seems strange, to me, that people like Whack-a-Mole or Elvis really think that the authors would so limit the right, even if they want to ignore any of the context or history of the thing… There’s nothing strange about it. They _really_ hate the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and they’ll say or believe anything and everything that gets them to that end result they desire, facts be damned. If this thread hasn’t clarified anything else for you, I hope it’s at least clarified that much. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/262 "2018-04-24T20:54:59Z")
Well, heck, don’t keep us in suspense! Is it their devotion to the Comintern, or in service to their Dark Lord? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/263 "2018-04-24T20:59:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It’s one sentence, not two. Take another look. It all goes together. The original intent is right there for all to see. I think I’ve read it more times, and read more about it than you ever will, so please keep your false histrionics to yourself. 😛 The original intent certainly is right there for all too see…for anyone who has bothered to look into it beyond simply reading it from a 21st century perspective with an obvious anti-gun bias. One merely has to look at the drafts of the thing, or read just about any of Madison’s writings, or read the writings of the other people involved at that time to know what they were getting at, and what their intent was. > [@](#): > > We understand your POV quite well, now it’s time for you to make a similar effort. Well, I asked you this before, because either you do get it, in which case it’s curious how you keep asking the same things, or you don’t get it, which renders the above kind of ironic. I certainly do understand YOUR point of view on this, and I get why it’s important to continue this charade with the militia bit (though I concede that for some it’s not a charade, just ignorance)…it allows you and others of like mind to you to blithely do away with the amendment without going through all the effort of actually using the process. You get to interpret it away, by fiat. Or you would, if you could, but currently that’s not how things are seen. I’m sure that, eventually, you’ll be able to stack the USSC deck with enough people either ignorant of history or who simply don’t care and a case so that you can change that to better suit how you want this to play out. Or, you know, you could try and simply change public opinion enough to just use the process to change, modify or even vacate the amendment the way that was intended. Since I doubt the USSC will change enough or a case will appear soon enough, that seems like a better use of your time, but you keep on with this attempt to reinterpret it to suit you. It’s worked so well so far after all. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/264 "2018-04-24T21:07:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There’s nothing strange about it. They _really_ hate the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and they’ll say or believe anything and everything that gets them to that end result they desire, facts be damned. If this thread hasn’t clarified anything else for you, I hope it’s at least clarified that much. At least we get clarified that guns makes one think one can read minds. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/265 "2018-04-24T23:05:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I can’t think of another way to interpret Stevens’ dissent. So yes, that’s how I read it - but that is a conclusion to draw from Stevens’ statement. What he is specifically arguing is that the 2nd amendment only applies to those serving in the militia or military. Outside of the context of militia/military service the 2nd amendment is not operative. > > [Breyer’s dissent](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html) states this reason similarly: > > Essentially the right only applies when serving in a militia, or to an extent home storage for militia purposes. > > Here again, Stevens constrains the population that is considered “the people” to those in context of service in a well-regulated militia. Outside of that, the 2nd wouldn’t apply based on the dissent from Stevens: > Stevens sets aside the idea that the militia could be expanded to include all able bodied men and women, etc. His dissent focuses on service in the militia, not simply being a member of the militia. Remember, his goal was to pave the way to repealing the 2nd amendment. I’ll just say that “in conjunction with” is not equivalent to “while currently serving in” and neither is “for militia purposes”. I’m reading those as “The gun needs to be capable of being used in the context of serving in a militia, although it might have other purposes, too. The person needs to be eligible for militia service even if the person is not serving in a militia at every moment he is in possession of the gun.” The main difference that is clearly where they part ways with the current jurisprudence is that the gun rights did pre-date the idea of use in the militia. I don’t want to speak for them, but perhaps they hold the view that the constitution does grant rights rather than simply recognizing rights that exist independent of the constitution. Let’s keep in mind that Obama is on record as recognizing an individual right to own guns in the 2nd Amendment, so it’s not Scalia is offering some view held only be the far right when he agrees with that notion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/266 "2018-04-24T23:44:42Z")
OK, perhaps I have been giving Justice Stevens an unwarranted benefit of the doubt. Looking at his recent [NYT Opinion piece:](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html) > [@](#): > > For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.” The first sentence is not only obviously incorrect, it is contradicted by the cite he gives in the very next sentence, presumably to support his claim. In _Miller_, that 1939 case he references, the majority opinion rests on the idea that a particular weapon can be banned if it has no relation to service in the militia. If “[the 2nd Amendment] was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation” then no such rational is needed. Ban the thing, _because we can!_ Is the guy senile, or just so invested in his political position that he doesn’t even realize what his own cite says? A cite whose details he should be intimately aware of. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/267 "2018-04-25T03:34:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The first sentence is not only obviously incorrect, it is contradicted by the cite he gives in the very next sentence, presumably to support his claim. In _Miller_, that 1939 case he references, the majority opinion rests on the idea that a particular weapon can be banned if it has no relation to service in the militia. If “[the 2nd Amendment] was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation” then no such rational is needed. Ban the thing, _because we can!_ :dubious: IANAL, but I’m not sure that “not limiting the government’s authority” means the same thing to lawyers as “allowing the exercise of the government’s authority completely unrestricted scope”. ISTM that courts don’t tend to look kindly on “just _because we can!_” arguments for legislative restrictions. In any case, Stevens makes it perfectly clear in the next paragraph that he recognizes the Second Amendment as having “limited coverage”, not “absolutely no coverage”. But I think he’s right in noting that whatever coverage the Second Amendment did have in a national-security sense is functionally obsolete nowadays, and the best course would be just to repeal it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/268 "2018-04-25T05:26:33Z")
I think in that next paragraph his reference to “limited coverage” means “limited to covering of the actual militia, not the people”. BTW, I’m with him on abolishing the 2nd amendment. I agree that it’s an anachronism. The whole militia bit doesn’t make much sense in the 21st century. But we haven’t gotten rid of it. And I’m not at all comfortable with the idea of letting a court just get rid of it for us. ---
**Author:** ![MarvinKitFox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@MarvinKitFox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarvinKitFox)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/269 "2018-04-25T05:44:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Wow, you spotted a typographical error, the same error many others spotted and at least one mentioned!!:eek: And you came into a serious debate to mention this! :eek:Great, fantastic, here’s a cookie. 😉 A serious debate? Great! Where is this serious debate, I seem to have gotten lost into the petty-name-calling sub-page… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/270 "2018-04-25T13:54:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think in that next paragraph his reference to “limited coverage” means “limited to covering of the actual militia, not the people”. Yes, obviously. > [@](#): > > But we haven’t gotten rid of it. And I’m not at all comfortable with the idea of letting a court just get rid of it for us. We do have a SCOTUS ruling that completely redefines it, removing the explicit limitation on its extent and inventing a different rationale from whole cloth. That’s pretty much just getting rid of it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/271 "2018-04-25T16:49:39Z")
I guess it depends to a large extent on whether you think the constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) grants right or recognizes rights that already exist. I’m not sure how one squares the former position with the 9th amendment, but then cognitive dissonance isn’t particularly rare. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/272 "2018-04-25T17:03:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [NRA has backed most state gun laws passed since Sandy Hook | PBS NewsHour](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/nra-has-backed-most-state-gun-laws-passed-since-sandy-hook) _ **Did you read that article?** _ _By the NRA’s count, governors since 2013 have enacted 382 “pro-gun” bills — many widely expanding access to firearms._ The article is about how more pro-gun laws have passed with NRA backing than gun control laws have been passed, which the NRA hasn’t supported. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/273 "2018-04-25T17:22:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m really at a loss to understand how the whole militia thing really matters one way or another. Surely you don’t think the 2nd amendment re: gun ownership is limited to folks currently serving in a militia, do you? The militia is “any adult who can at some time be called up to serve in a militia”. How is that different from “any adult”? If you have any doubts about that, take another look at _Miller_, which explains this in great detail. I suppose one might argue that there is an age limit to serving in a militia, so there should be an age limit to owning guns. But, does that really make sense? That only folks under the age of 50 can own guns, unless expressly allowed by the government? And wouldn’t the government immediately pass a law rescinding that age requirement if some court were to decide that old folks could be excluded from gun ownership? > > So, _arguendo_, let’s say we decide: The “militia” clause is very important for all aspects of 2nd amendment jurisprudence, including who can and cannot own a gun. In what way does that place a restriction on gun ownership? In that now a militia, not being “necessary,” meaning it is not a civic thing anymore, or legally workable, means that the amendment is dead, and stopped having meaning in peoples lives in the 21st century. Why do gun rights derive from 300 year old considerations? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/274 "2018-04-25T17:23:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I guess it depends to a large extent on whether you think the constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) grants right or recognizes rights that already exist. I’m not sure how one squares the former position with the 9th amendment, but then cognitive dissonance isn’t particularly rare. Of course it grants rights. What rights exist without a social construct ensuring those rights? Anyone that talks about natural or god granted rights is talking philosophically at best, as the one who grants you a right is the one who protects it. If guns are a natural right, then it would be impossible to take guns from you. Nature or god or the universe would prevent it. As rights are in fact granted by social constructs, it is those social constructs that are enforcing them. Now, because they are made of people, they are flawed, and your rights may be violated, but then you have the ability to address those grievances within the same construct. If you are depending on your right being protected by it being a natural right that already exists, who are you going to address your grievances to when nature fails to protect those rights for you? The constitution does not discover rights that already exist, it grants rights to those it covers. These rights are protected by other people, who have an interest in keeping their own rights, so have an interest in protecting yours as well. I am not sure why would think that the social construct known as the 9th amendment is any more of a god given or natural right than anything else that mankind has codified. It requires no cognitive dissonance to understand that it was meant to be a “that which is not prohibited is permitted” type of thing, to differentiate it from other legal systems that are the opposite (“that which is not permitted is prohibited”). I am curious as to what you are thinking the meaning of it is. Some people take it to mean “that which is not prohibited in the constitution may not be infringed”, but that’s a cognitively dissonant position, as that means that congress effectively cannot make any laws, and any laws they have made are unconstitutional. I’ve heard that among sovcits, but never in any mainstream discussion. What exactly is the cognitive dissonance in believing that the constitution codifies rights that the government is to grant and protect, while not taking the 9th amendment to mean that rights naturally granted and are simply discovered, rather than granted. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/275 "2018-04-25T17:46:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, obviously. > > We do have a SCOTUS ruling that completely redefines it, removing the explicit limitation on its extent and inventing a different rationale from whole cloth. That’s pretty much just getting rid of it. An option with a small, but real bonus! Arcane, abstract and legalistic arguments over the 2nd can still continue unabated. Spectacular displays of mental gymnastics may yet thrive! Only theology offers as fertile a ground. If only these questions could be debated by means of interpretive dance! I would definitely pay to see that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/276 "2018-04-25T17:54:06Z")
Scalia himself denounced [“jiggery-pokery” and “argle-bargle”](https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/30/418645881/jiggery-pokery-the-justices-have-a-punny-way-with-words) when he didn’t like the result. And, per that cite, he also once said in a decision “Ask the nearest hippie”. And here you are. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/277 "2018-04-25T18:01:58Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > _ **Did you read that article?** _ > > _By the NRA’s count, governors since 2013 have enacted 382 “pro-gun” bills — many widely expanding access to firearms._ > > The article is about how more pro-gun laws have passed with NRA backing than gun control laws have been passed, which the NRA hasn’t supported. Yes, and? But the NRA seems to be Ok with laws banning bump stocks. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/278 "2018-04-25T18:49:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, and? But the NRA seems to be Ok with laws banning bump stocks. There is some [level of disagreement on that.](https://www.thenation.com/article/dont-be-fooled-the-nra-doesnt-want-to-ban-bump-stocks/) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2018, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/279 "2018-04-28T03:31:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But I would be curious to see what **Whack-a-Mole** thinks and why the “militia” seems so important. My apologies for not responding. We had a death in the family and it has occupied my time (had to travel, no access to a computer except my phone). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2018, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/280 "2018-04-28T04:59:53Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > In that now a militia, not being “necessary,” meaning it is not a civic thing anymore, or legally workable, means that the amendment is dead, and stopped having meaning in peoples lives in the 21st century. > > Why do gun rights derive from 300 year old considerations? Because those considerations haven’t been legally deemed “dead”. I’m in agreement 100% that the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, but I also understand how we change it-- that process is right there in the constitution. You and I thinking it’s no longer relevant is not a legal argument. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Of course it grants rights. What rights exist without a social construct ensuring those rights? Anyone that talks about natural or god granted rights is talking philosophically at best, as the one who grants you a right is the one who protects it. I agree, but we can’t ignore the fact that our founding document speaks directly of such natural rights, nor can we ignore the 9th amendment which is quite clear about rights not being granted by the constitution. That’s history, not philosophy. I’m fully on board with the idea that rights are a social construct. But I can’t reasonably just dismiss those who disagree. It’s in our national DNA, like it or not. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > My apologies for not responding. We had a death in the family and it has occupied my time (had to travel, no access to a computer except my phone). I’m very sorry to hear about your loss. No apologies needed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=15)