Nm
<sigh> Here we go again. The single phrase that the gun control advocates can’t seem to get past: **well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated well-regulated **. Despite the fact that time and again cites have been given that, to quote the internet meme, “I do not think it means what you think it means”. To cite (again) just one source:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
Yes, I have read the Constitution. And also the entirety of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I am familiar with how people spoke and wrote in the latter 18th century, and I’m familiar with the subject matters they debated extensively regarding the ratification of the Federal constitution. What the gun control proponents can’t- or don’t want to?- understand is the original archaic meaning of the phrase well-regulated. Or that for the modern sense in which it’s used the Framers invariably used the term “disciplined” when that was what they wanted to convey. The 2nd Amendment didn’t graciously “grant” the states the “right” to organize the (plural noun) militia. It was to prevent the Federal government from perverting its co-authority with the states over the militia to effect a de facto disarmament.
Well it’s easy to get a gun if you’ve never done anything wrong, on the general principle that people should be free unless and until that freedom is misused. That’s why we have things like trials and competency hearings. Prior restraint, where someone is forbidden to do something because they may commit a wrongdoing is the antithesis of freedom and the most problematic of legal methods. Would you have people forbidden to own guns based on the accusations of a crank neighbor or an angry ex; or profiling based on claims that you can assign an increased statistical risk of misusing firearms based on certain criteria?
Gun control in this country is by and large NOT about “sensible regulation”, it’s about the belief that there should be as few guns in private hands as possible, with zero the ideal. Countries like Switzerland have true gun regulation, where it is not in pursuit of discouraging and obstructing as many people as possible from owning guns. Look at Shall Issue carry: it is the simple principle that people who meet the qualifications (sensible regulation iow) cannot arbitrarily be denied a carry permit. The gun control crowd insisted this would be the end of civilized society, that our cities would descend into chaos like an American Mogadishu or Beirut. Too many antis insist that guns are inherently bad things, and unless that changes gun owners are right to be wary of anything that gives the prohibitionists a tool to use.
One theory I’ve heard is that the Second Amendment was part of the compromise with the south. Southern delegates were worried that the federal government might not send troops to support them if there were slave uprisings. So they wanted to make sure that they had the legal right to raise their own local troops if necessary.
It makes sense. Most of the other rights in the Bill of Rights addressed specific things that the British had done like closing hostile presses, breaking up meetings, and quartering troops. And the British had also encouraged slave uprisings during the war. Congress, which saw its main enemy as the British Army, didn’t send troops to help defend against these uprisings.
I’m imagining the scene when Antonin Scalia summoned you to his deathbed and spoke the words: “Dear Lumpy, for the last thirty years I alone have held the power to see into the hearts and minds of the founding fathers and truly know their thoughts. And I have faithfully discharged my sacred duty of passing on their thoughts to America, unsoiled by any feelings or beliefs I myself held. Let God witness that I have never expressed my own opinions but only said those things which the founding fathers would have said had they been able to. But now my time is ending and God has chosen you as the one I must pass this power to. From now until the day you die, you alone will bear the gift of knowing what it is the founding fathers meant and the burden of conveying their thoughts to all others.”
ha. ha.
Seriously, you do understand that vocabulary changes over centuries? By usage words acquire meanings they didn’t originally have? That’s not magic mind reading, that’s what the words meant at the time.
Yes, I understand language changes over time. So I, as somebody living in the 21st century, will sometimes have difficulty understanding what somebody who was writing in the 18th century meant. Which is why I would never claim that I am absolutely positive that I know what they were thinking.
Other people living in the 21st century might also acknowledge this uncertainty.
-
But do they really feel like this? I’d guess at least a few do. I do know that I’ve known plenty of people who like and own guns, and never once have I known them to carry them around for defense.
-
Pretty much the same idea as 1.
Again, not claiming to know, I’d bet that they don’t like the idea of being told by weeny-ass liberals what they can and can’t have, but don’t want to say that, so they come up with excuses like the above.
So, any gun owners in this thread who are terrified little man-babies, that are oh, so afraid to venture out into the big bad scary world without their precious firearms? Or am I right? 
And on a separate note, language is not the only thing that has changed since the 18th century. Which means that even if we knew with absolute certainty what the founding fathers were thinking when they enacted the Second Amendment and even if they were choosing the best possible position at the time, it doesn’t mean that the position they held in 1789 is still the best position in 2019.
This isn’t a thread about Trump, and doesn’t have anything even peripherally to do with him, so I’m not sure why you need to bring him up.
Thank you for asking earnestly. It is not my opinion, hence the scare quotes, just a stock phrase that comes up often. People were more religious back then, even though Jefferson was very heterodox. It was the phrasing people used.
[/QUOTE]
I get what you are saying and don’t disagree, but they are rights in the
philosophical sense.
I’m not sure about that first part, I don’t see how it’s permission for regulation, but they were very serious about the independence of states.
But with regard to “well regulated,” it clearly means well trained, not about any regulations.
You completely missed the entirety of the point.
First, as you say, well regulated means disciplined, that’s not archaic, that’s obvious. You also forget that the third word of that phrase is “militia” which has a very specific definition defined in the constitution. It was not 2A that calls for a militia, it is Article 1, section 8. That is what defines what a militia is, and what is responsibilities are. 2A then recognizes the need for a militia, and prevents the federal government from passing laws that would interfere with the states ability to raise one.
You also miss the fact that the founders did not prohibit states from restricting gun rights, and many states did so with not a even a single tweet from them. You have ducked that point on several occaisons, and just ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.
Do you think that the FF’s would have wanted states to not have a right to make gun laws? If you think that, then why do you think that they didn’t?
The states were worried about the fed not allowing them to raise militias as the saw fit, to do important things like commit genocide on the natives and put down slave uprisings, and if the fed changed its mind on those things, then the states wouldn’t much appreciate it. So, the fed cannot tell the states how to regulate guns in their borders. That was the intent of the FF’s. Not to protect the right of an individual to have a gun, but to protect the right of a state to make gun laws as they saw fit.
Do you consider that you have to have applied for, taken, and passed a diver’s test before you are allowed to drive to be prior restraint?
But yeah, if your crank neighbor is threatening you because your tree dropped a branch on his azaleas, wouldn’t you be more comfortable knowing that steps have been taken to reduce the threat that he poses to you and your family?
In any case, it is also very, very easy to get a gun if you have done something wrong. You can be prohibited from owning a gun, and all that means is that you don’t acutally go to the counter of the gun store to buy your gun.
(Aside: If I were at my local gun shop, looking at a particular gun, and while I am out thinking about it [it’s a $950 gun, not an impulse buy], someone asks me if I would be interested in that same model of gun, but for only $250. If I were to buy it, and later it turned out to be stolen, would I have any liability?)
Strawman, pure and simple. That is not the position that we are taking, that is not the position that the vast majority of those for sensible regulation are taking. It is a completely dishonest tactic to keep claiming that we are in favor of something that we are not. If you insist on only talking about the most extreme of gun control advocates, then we will have little choice but to point out the most extreme of gun users.
I’ll take Feinsten over Paddock, if I have to make a choice, would you?
And I consider Switzerland to be a viable model for us to move towards. They have a high rate of gun ownership, but very little gun violence and accidents.
You are conflating. Are you claiming that switzerland has shall issue carry?
There is an ever-growing support for gun control in this country. I contend that it is far from obvious that an enormous shift would have to happen among the American populace at large for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, but an enormous shift in the number of politicians across the states that would be willing to vote for it. Now, I am not talking about anything like this happening in a few years, or even a decade. But I do not think twenty years or the like is necessarily out of the question, given current trends in gun control support and generally liberal ideas. Being that we are not in GD, I want to make clear that of course I have no hard evidence for that. But Lumpy’s contention does not seem to me to be so evident.
ETA: Note that I am only talking about repeal, not complete banning of guns.
Missed the edit.
How many is too many? Do you know how many there are, and in what proportion to the numbers that simply want some sort of sensible controls?
As long as there is a single gun control advocate that advocates for a complete gun ban, gun owners should be correct to resist having a reasonable discussion about how we can improve public safety? 2, 5, 10? What is the number that you say is too much, precisely?
Many of you gunners regarded guns as the most important issue in the 2016 Presidential Election; and voted for Trump.
Are gun rights still the most important political issue facing the USA today? Would you still vote for Trump?
I was thinking about gun ownership/car ownership before entering this thread, and why it’s widely agreed that car licensing/registration/required driving classes make sense for cars but not guns among gun owners. My theory is that we all pretty much agree we should be able to own cars, and they are necessary for most people in today’s society. But we don’t all agree in the same about the necessity of guns. So, it’s easy for a gun owner to acknowledge that the other side is right about cars, but not about guns. That is, they don’t like being told anything about the guns they own by those that don’t like/approve of them. People have a natural inclination not to like being told what to do, so guns owners rationalize all sorts of things in order to resist. Like the obvious notion that the more guns that are banned, the fewer people that will be harmed by them.
Read the Declaration of Independence if you really don’t know. The Founding Fathers didn’t feel the need to quote any religious writings - they held that it was self-evident that rights came from the Creator.
So that’s where the “God-given” part comes from. You don’t have to believe it, but if you really never got an answer before, now you have it.
Regards,
Shodan
The rights listed were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. *Not *gun ownership, which in fact is in direct *opposition *to each of these rights held by others.
The question was not about rights in general. :dubious: Again, the right claimed to be “God-given” is the one to gun ownership. Where does *that *come from? What other document or teachings even discuss it positively? What God created it?
Lumpy, do please read the rest of the Constitution sometime. Lotsa good stuff in there.
I’m not sure what your point is here. Is it that banning surface to air missiles, RPGs, and heavy machine guns is useless and ineffective?
[/QUOTE]
I think you missed the point, the IRA managed to get many weapons that were banned, the fact that making something illegal we means it won’t be available is illogical. You also are missing the point the the British fought the IRA for many, many years and yet really didn’t defeat them. Imagine going to the Midwest, then try rounding up all the guns, and fighting people who you don’t know are with or against you? When the enemy look like everyone else, who don’t wear uniforms, who hit and run who will blow up your base and the local population will hide them what do you do, shoot everyone?
The fact the murder rate doesn’t really change, pre and post gun ban should tell you the banning guns doesn’t really work when it comes to stopping people from killing each other, or does it make you feel better that someone was beaten to death rather then shot?
Laws are only followed by people who obey the law, criminals by definition don’t follow the law. Now look at the compliance in New Jersey and their ban on large capacity magazines, compliance is almost 0, what it did was turn a lot of people in to criminals, who refused to follow the new law for any number of reasons. Think about that for a second, then think about if a majority of people state disrespecting the law then the state itself is in danger. Gun control in Canada failed because people failed to followed it. Just like the war on drugs failed because people failed to follow it, and Canada gave up, you can’t lock everyone up.
Again we are in the age of 3d printing, and while it might not be perfect at this time it’s getting better and better every year as well as cheaper every year. We can print in metal now, so how do you stop that? Easy, the only way to stop that is to stop free speech, there are instructions on how to make cotton powder, plastic explosives, machine gun, bombs, EMP devices, heck with a tiny bit of research you could build a drone to fly a bomb anywhere, while you’re sipping champagne far, far away. So to stop that free speech must end, then that whole 4th amendment, that has to go too, we need to find the 300 million guns and if you have nothing to hide you should object.
You see I don’t see it as a gun issue, I see it as a rights issue. If the government can take away any of our rights then they can take them all.
Then amend the Constitution, easy if you really think you’re right and that people will agree with you, strip the 2nd out of the constitution.
It’s possible. But I also think it’s possible that the people who have an absolutist opposition to any form of gun control are that way because the Second Amendment allows them to be. For all practical purposes, they’ve already won the argument before it even begins. So they don’t have to put any effort into winning people over to their side.
Suppose I was morally opposed to the idea of speed limits. I believe that God and Natural Law gives every American the right to drive as fast as they choose anywhere they choose. My problem is that a lot of people feel otherwise and speed limits are in effect all over the country.
Now I don’t have a Constitutional Amendment that I can point to which says that Congress shall make no law abridging the right to drive as fast as you want. So if I want to eliminate speed limits, I have to do it through the legislative process and that means I have to win over the majority of the general public to my point of view. And that means I have to be nice. I can’t just shout at people and tell them they’re wrong. I have to smile and present my arguments in a friendly manner. I might even have to compromise my ideal of unlimited speed and work on enacting a national 90 mph speed limit.
The founding fathers inexplicably failed to include a line in the Constitution about how Little Nemo could make changes in it whenever he thought he was right. So I can’t just rewrite the Constitution on my own initiative.
And as I’ve said in this thread, I’m not all that worked up about the Second Amendment. I think it’s a mistake but there are other constitutional issues I feel are more important than gun ownership. If other people want to put forth the effort into getting a repeal movement going, I’ll vote for repeal when it gets on the ballot. But I’m not going to spend a lot of my time getting it on the ballot.