# 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:** 9
**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 23, 2018, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/161 "2018-04-23T14:04:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > There had been multiple amendments passed already before the Civil War. > > And the Constitution itself was quite clear that it, and federal laws, were supreme within their purview over anything the states could do. That quite clearly means that unilateral secession isn’t possible. You are right…I was thinking that we hadn’t changed fundamentally an amendment to that point, but on reflection there wasn’t an amendment dealing with slavery in the system. That’s why the southern states seceded after all…they felt the balance of power shifting such that eventually one would be made at some point. I still don’t think that the Civil War is a demonstration that our Constitution failed, but I concede that it’s a debatable point. And it was still early in this nations history. I don’t think that at this point we would need a similar civil war to change the 2nd and remove the right, though I am not saying it would be easy. However, if the public opinion shifts enough I think it will eventually happen, especially as the number of households with a fire arm continues to drop and while we have spectacular mass shootings in the news. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/162 "2018-04-23T14:10:21Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Well, usually only their favorite amendment. Most of them can’t tell you what any of the others do. > > Ask most 2nd Amendment supports what the 6th Amendment does and I doubt that more than about 10% will be able to tell you. Ask most of them what their non-favorite half of the 2nd Commandment itself says and they’ll either ignore it or make something up. ---
**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 23, 2018, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/163 "2018-04-23T14:22:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Ask most of them what their non-favorite half of the 2nd Commandment itself says and they’ll either ignore it or make something up. You are projecting again. Just because you have a non-favorite half doesn’t mean everyone feels the same way. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/164 "2018-04-23T14:27:58Z")
How often are your militia drills? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/165 "2018-04-23T14:31:13Z")
And again, despite the Constitution quite clearly stating that the militias were essential, nobody batted an eye when Reagan abolished them. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/166 "2018-04-23T14:35:09Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Well, usually only their favorite amendment. Most of them can’t tell you what any of the others do. > > Ask most 2nd Amendment supports what the 6th Amendment does and I doubt that more than about 10% will be able to tell you. Ask most people what the 6th amendment does and they will fall short. After the First and the Second, interest falls off pretty quick. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/167 "2018-04-23T14:36:42Z")
Well, the Fifth has a firm place in pop culture. ---
**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 23, 2018, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/168 "2018-04-23T14:41:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How often are your militia drills? I have a religious dispensation…since I’m not religious I don’t have to join. Good thing my right to keep and bear arms isn’t dependent on being in a militia, right? Of course, since it’s my choice, I choose to neither be in a militia OR bear arms. Choice is a good thing. > [@Chronos](#): > > And again, despite the Constitution quite clearly stating that the militias were essential, nobody batted an eye when Reagan abolished them. I think that the reserves and national guard have adequately filled the role of militia, so that’s probably why no one batted an eye. And since your right to keep and bear arms was never dependent on being in a militia (while in the past the security of a free state was dependent on an armed populace), it’s all good. Today, we could certainly create a new amendment to allow for (more) infringement or even remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a protected right. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/169 "2018-04-23T14:55:46Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I have a religious dispensation…since I’m not religious I don’t have to join. Was that supposed to be a joke? About killing people? > [@](#): > > Good thing my right to keep and bear arms isn’t dependent on being in a militia, right? Wrong. There’s an excellent example of ignoring the part of the 2nd that you don’t like; the part that explains what it’s for and within what limits. You read the 2nd as if it weren’t even there, and claim it’s the \*other \*guys who dismiss half of it. > [@](#): > > I think that the reserves and national guard have adequately filled the role of militia The establishment of a standing army did that, and incidentally made the 2nd moot. That was the conventional interpretation for many generations, as you must know. Meanwhile, the militias legally \*became \*the Guard. > [@](#): > > Today, we could certainly create a new amendment to allow for (more) infringement or even remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a protected right. Certainly. Why shouldn’t we, then? Let claims to gun rights be based on the 21st century and actual constitutional text, not their own sake. Get rid of the misinterpretations of an ancient and long-moot text, deliberate or not. You agree, right? _No_? Why not, then? ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/170 "2018-04-23T15:09:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I do not shoot guns but I’d be willing to bet you need to practice a fair bit to be fast with a speedloader not to mention be accurate when firing a revolver as quickly as possible. > > I’d think someone with a lot less practice can manage more carnage with an AR-15 and a bump stock than that same unpracticed person could manage with a revolver and a speed loader. Also I think it’d get tiring pretty quickly operating a revolver like that (trigger finger would get tired and slow down over time). Something that is not a concern with the AR-15 + bump stock. > > But as said I am no expert in shooting either one so will defer to those who have. It’s flat out TRUE that an AR-15 or any magazine-fed semi-auto is going to be the most ‘useful’ for these ubiquitous killing sprees, which is exactly why it’s used so often. And without a lot of practice using speedloaders (and a lot of practice on accuracy at a target range), yeah someone is not gonna be able to get this done with a revolver, not really. But people always forget about one weapon in these discussions: the shotgun. This is probably more common and more readily available than either revolvers or AR-15s. It’s rarely used in mass shootings because AR-15s are “better” for that purpose. But it _could_ be, and the results would be horrific. I’m not saying “hey we can’t regulate AR-15s because then people would just use shotguns” - I’m OK with regulating them more strictly, though I don’t think they need to be banned outright. But if someone were to unload a shotgun filled with medium buckshot at a bunch of people crowded together in close quarters, the results would NOT be very heartwarming. If AR-15s all disappeared tomorrow, the shotgun would become the weapon of choice for mass killers, and good luck banning _that._ ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/171 "2018-04-23T15:22:21Z")
And here’s the other thing that every discussion like this unavoidably contains… “Good luck with\* that\*!” Good luck with banning the AR15. Good luck with banning high capacity mags. Good luck with banning shotguns. Good luck with taking that gun from my cold dead hand. We don’t need luck. What we need is the social and political will and a congress to act in the interest of humanity, not the NR_fucking_A. ---
**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 23, 2018, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/172 "2018-04-23T15:30:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Was that supposed to be a joke? About killing people? No. It’s a joke at your expense about militias and the necessity to be in one to have the right to keep and bear arms. No idea how you could have so misinterpreted it unless it’s willful ignorance. > [@](#): > > Wrong. There’s an excellent example of ignoring the part of the 2nd that you don’t like; the part that explains what it’s for and within what limits. You read the 2nd as if it weren’t even there, and claim it’s the other guys who dismiss half of it. Naw, we’ve been over this, so it’s willful ignorance on your part to not even acknowledge the point, let alone accept it as reality. > [@](#): > > The establishment of a standing army did that, and incidentally made the 2nd moot. That was the conventional interpretation for many generations, as you must know. Meanwhile, the militias legally became the Guard. No, it didn’t because the second clause isn’t dependent on the 1st, as has been told to you repeatedly. Your general reaction has been the same as in this thread…fingers stuffed firmly in ears shouting WRONG! and ignoring anything that you don’t agree with. Again, willful ignorance on your part to not even acknowledge that there is another viewpoint, whether you agree with it or not. Basically, you aren’t worth engaging on this subject because you don’t know what you are talking about, are sadly ignorant of the subject except perhaps what you read once in a Google search saying what you wanted to hear, insist that yours is the only viewpoint and are just a broken record who’s sum total to any discussion is ‘you are wrong’. > [@](#): > > Certainly. Why shouldn’t we, then? Let claims to gun rights be based on the 21st century and actual constitutional text, not their own sake. Get rid of the misinterpretations of an ancient and long-moot text, deliberate or not. You agree, right? No? Why not, then? I agree that the Constitution should be changed, as was intended, when an amendment is no longer necessary or when society deems it no longer necessary, or modified by the Constitutional process when either of those apply. I disagree that it should be reinterpreted out of existence to say something directly opposed to the original intent of the amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/173 "2018-04-23T15:35:07Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > And here’s the other thing that every discussion like this unavoidably contains… “Good luck with\* that\*!” > > Good luck with banning the AR15. > Good luck with banning high capacity mags. > Good luck with banning shotguns. > Good luck with taking that gun from my cold dead hand. > > We don’t need luck. What we need is the social and political will and a congress to act in the interest of humanity, not the NR_fucking_A. The other things _can_ probably be banned, or regulated more highly, as long as the political capital is there (and I don’t think it is at the moment.) But I don’t see how shotguns could possibly banned. They already do have shotguns in Canada, I’ve used them there, but I can’t remember ever hearing about a really bad mass shooting in Canada, which would lead me to believe that there are problems specific to America that cause these shootings to happen. Michael Moore made a similar point in _Bowling For Columbine_, which was a good and interesting movie (although I don’t like how he ambushed Heston, who was suffering from Alzheimers, at the end.) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/174 "2018-04-23T15:43:17Z")
> [@XT](#): > > However, if the public opinion shifts enough I think it will eventually happen, especially as the number of households with a fire arm continues to drop and while we have spectacular mass shootings in the news. This is probably what most anti gun people are hoping for - celebrating more spectacular mass shootings rewarding their blood dance to be used to push their agenda. Am I doing the ridiculous hyperbole correctly? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/175 "2018-04-23T15:51:50Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No. It’s a joke at your expense about militias and the necessity to be in one to have the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment you revere is a joke? Really? > [@](#): > > No idea how you could have so misinterpreted it unless it’s willful ignorance. > > … it’s willful ignorance on your part… :dubious: > [@](#): > > to not even acknowledge the point, let alone accept it as reality. And you accuse me of projecting? I recognize the existence of the entire amendment while you ignore half of it. That is what you call a “point” and “reality”. > [@](#): > > No, it didn’t because the second clause isn’t dependent on the 1st, as has been told to you repeatedly. Repetition doesn’t make truth; it merely illustrates ideologuism. You want the explanatory clause not to mean anything, sure, but it’s there. It’s _there_. That’s “reality”. > [@](#): > > Your general reaction has been the same as in this thread…fingers stuffed firmly in ears shouting WRONG! and ignoring anything that you don’t agree with. Again, willful ignorance on your part to not even acknowledge that there is another viewpoint, whether you agree with it or not. Basically, you aren’t worth engaging on this subject because you don’t know what you are talking about, are sadly ignorant of the subject except perhaps what you read once in a Google search saying what you wanted to hear, insist that yours is the only viewpoint and are just a broken record who’s sum total to any discussion is ‘you are wrong’. :rolleyes: If you could provide reasoning instead of personal attacks, you no doubt would do so. > [@](#): > > I disagree that it should be reinterpreted out of existence to say something directly opposed to the original intent of the amendment. And yet that’s exactly what you are doing by dismissing the Founders’ own original-intent explanation of the purpose of the 2nd. Work it out with whoever else is using your SDMB account and come back when you have a consensus between yourselves. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/176 "2018-04-23T15:52:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is probably what most anti gun people are hoping for - celebrating more spectacular mass shootings rewarding their blood dance to be used to push their agenda. Am I doing the ridiculous hyperbole correctly? Aren’t you better than that? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/177 "2018-04-23T16:14:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **XT** : > > I think that the reserves and national guard have adequately filled the role of militia, so that’s probably why no one batted an eye. Well, they used to, until Reagan. The point of the militias was that they were under the control of the states, not of the federal government. Nowadays, the federal government can take control of them whenever they feel like it… which means that, in real terms, they’re always under the control of the federal government. ---
**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 23, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/178 "2018-04-23T16:20:10Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > There had been multiple amendments passed already before the Civil War. > > And the Constitution itself was quite clear that it, and federal laws, were supreme within their purview over anything the states could do. That quite clearly means that unilateral secession isn’t possible. I don’t think so. But I could be wrong. Can you quote the part of the Constitution or the Federal law that was in place in 1860 that clearly defined unilateral secession as being illegal? > [@XT](#): > > You are right…I was thinking that we hadn’t changed fundamentally an amendment to that point, but on reflection there wasn’t an amendment dealing with slavery in the system. That’s why the southern states seceded after all…they felt the balance of power shifting such that eventually one would be made at some point. > > I still don’t think that the Civil War is a demonstration that our Constitution failed, but I concede that it’s a debatable point. And it was still early in this nations history. I don’t think that at this point we would need a similar civil war to change the 2nd and remove the right, though I am not saying it would be easy. However, if the public opinion shifts enough I think it will eventually happen, especially as the number of households with a fire arm continues to drop and while we have spectacular mass shootings in the news. Pretty much every country that has ever existed had a Civil War. Nothing particularly unique about the US having had one, especially given the timeframe. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/179 "2018-04-23T16:20:24Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Ask most of them what their non-favorite half of the 2nd Commandment itself says and they’ll either ignore it or make something up. Right! “You can’t make any laws about guns! That’s the 2nd Amendment!” "Well what about the part where it says “well regulated”? ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/180 "2018-04-23T16:23:49Z")
Honestly, what I expect to see will be a banning of production and import of certain varieties and calibers of firearms with a grandfathering of all existing arms. I don’t think anyone is going to be voting for going around and confiscating all those .500 Desert Eagles and BMG 50’s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=10)