But, a well-regulated Militia is NOT necessary to the security of a free State

[Odesio]

@BrainGlutton

Well, clearly we don’t need the 2nd Amendment any more, at least, not for the reason the authors stated therein. The National Guards have guns issued to them, and if the “reserve militia” ever is mobilized it will need the same – their personal hunting rifles will not play any relevant role. The “right of the people to keep and bear arms” has no relevance here.

I don’t know, even back then a militia might have an armory with guns, rifles, powder and ammo. The British were attempting to seize/destroy one such armory in Concord, Massachusetts in 1775. Anyway, my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that bearing arms is an individual right.

[adaher]

I don’t think there’s any question about that. In the Constitution, “the people” always means individuals. If the right to bear arms was a right of the people collectively, it would have no real meaning. It would simply be a government enumerated power. And it’s already in the Constitution under Congress’ powers:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So it’s specifically covered already. If the 2nd amendment just reiterated that, there’d be no point to it.

[BrainGlutton]

@Odesio

I don’t know, even back then a militia might have an armory with guns, rifles, powder and ammo. The British were attempting to seize/destroy one such armory in Concord, Massachusetts in 1775.

That was my point. Those were not the weapons the militiamen kept at home.

@Odesio

Anyway, my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that bearing arms is an individual right.

Which does not mean it has any value. Free-speech rights and voting rights have value to and in a democracy; the right to bear arms – defined as private personal ownership of arms – does not. There are some practical reasons why it should be allowed, but they don’t rise to a level meriting constitutional protection.

[BrainGlutton]

@boytyperanma

I fail to see any coloration between gun ownership and resistance to authoritative rule.

Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia

I think you meant “correlation.”

[Chimera]

1st Amendment: The Right of the People
2nd Amendment: The Right of the People
4th Amendment: The Right of the People

As I have said before, if the 2nd Amendment doesn’t refer to everyone when it says ‘the right of the peope’, then it could likewise be ruled that when the 1st Amendment says ‘the right of the people to peacably assemble’, this could be construed by a tyrranical government as only applying to licensed political parties.

[adaher]

Yeah, try to apply the 4th amendment as only being a collective right. Makes no sense.

I agree that the militia function of the 2nd amendment MIGHT be outdated. But the right to bear arms is also based on the right of self-defense, and many of the other things written by the founders about the right to bear arms still apply today, such as the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time.

[Oakminster]

@BrainGlutton

I’m merely trying to show why amending the Constitution to delete the 2nd Amendment would not be any threat to American liberty, nor security.

And you’re wrong, as usual. Without the 2nd Amendment, the Federal, State, or Local government could…and some definitely would…ban the private ownership of guns. That would be a horrible thing.

[boytyperanma]

@BrainGlutton

I think you meant “correlation.”

I might have.

[adaher]

Not only that, but gun bans tend to be a slippery slope. Most nations that ban private ownership of guns also ban private ownership of non-lethal personal security devices. Guns go, then stun guns, then pepper spray.

[Latro]

@adaher

As a Chinese official once said when asked about the effects of the French Revolution: “It’s too soon to tell.”
Not a whole lot. And 1913, there are still people alive from then, I wouldn’t exactly call that long term in the sweep of human history.
Outside the West, happens all the time.

So, basically, you admit you´re just pulling it out of your arse

[boytyperanma]

@Oakminster

And you’re wrong, as usual. Without the 2nd Amendment, the Federal, State, or Local government could…and some definitely would…ban the private ownership of guns. That would be a horrible thing.

Yes it would be a terrible thing for the local democratically elected representatives to pass laws that a majority of their constituents desire.

[adaher]

@Latro

So, basically, you admit you´re just pulling it out of your arse

No, just pointing out that your time horizon might be too short.

[adaher]

@boytyperanma

Yes it would be a terrible thing for the local democratically elected representatives to pass laws that a majority of their constituents desire.

Such as laws banning abortion? Or gay marriage? Or stamp collecting?

[boytyperanma]

@adaher

Not only that, but gun bans tend to be a slippery slope. Most nations that ban private ownership of guns also ban private ownership of non-lethal personal security devices. Guns go, then stun guns, then pepper spray.

Can you name a country that has a ban on private ownership of firearms?

[boytyperanma]

@adaher

Such as laws banning abortion? Or gay marriage? Or stamp collecting?

I’m not saying they should be able to pass laws in conflict of the 2nd amendment. I think the 2nd amendment serves no useful purpose and if it were to be repealed local governments should be allowed to pass laws as their constituents desire.

Want to ban guns repeal the second amendment.

Want to ban gay marriage amend the constitution to do so.

Want to ban abortion amend the constitution to do so.

Not everyone gets what they want.

[adaher]

Complete 100% bans, none I know of. However, many countries make it nearly impossible for an average citizen to get a gun, such as Britain. That’s functionally a gun ban.

[Odesio]

@BrainGlutton

Which does not mean it has any value. Free-speech rights and voting rights have value to and in a democracy; the right to bear arms – defined as private personal ownership of arms – does not. There are some practical reasons why it should be allowed, but they don’t rise to a level meriting constitutional protection.

That begs the question, Brain. What standard do you use to determine whether something merits constitutional protection?

[Odesio]

Nevermind

[boytyperanma]

@adaher

Complete 100% bans, none I know of. However, many countries make it nearly impossible for an average citizen to get a gun, such as Britain. That’s functionally a gun ban.

Not only that, but gun bans tend to be a slippery slope. Most nations that ban private ownership of guns also ban private ownership of non-lethal personal security devices. Guns go, then stun guns, then pepper spray.

Very scary slippery slope you’ve established here. What’s this say about the number of countries that ban pepper spray but not firearms? Are they climbing the hill?

[adaher]

If the average person cannot get a gun, then you have a gun ban for all intents and purposes. I’m sure pepper spray isn’t totally banned, but that’s no easier to get in many places.