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.
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.
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.
Was that supposed to be a joke? About killing people?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 NRfuckingA.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.)
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?
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”.
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”.
:rolleyes: If you could provide reasoning instead of personal attacks, you no doubt would do so.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
