Well said. But I’ve no doubt somebody is about to bring up “natural rights” as a way to reducing your argument to something akin to neo-fascism. You know, like in Canada.
My personal opinion is that the second amendment was intended to placate southerners and westerners. There were concerns that the new federal government, based in Philadelphia or New York, would not help in cases of Indian uprisings or slave revolts. The states wanted to retain the option of fielding their own local forces if the national government refused to send troops.
Yes, the militia is well regulated, in the way the Constitution says. If you think it is not, then by all means pressure the government to change that so as to fulfill their Constitutional duty to make sure that we do. Keep in mind that whether or not it is well-regulated does not affect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because the Second Amendment does not say that the right can be infringed if the militia is not operating as it should.
If the militia is not working as it should, that’s bad. But the Second Amendment says that it can’t work as it should, however defined, unless the people’s right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.
Regards,
Shodan
Lincoln should have, though.
Regards,
Shodan
And in what way is that?
It’s funny to hear people talk about the intentions of the Constitution as if these are facts rather than just what a handful of relatively recent political appointees happen to have said.
In service of what? You forgot to mention.
If I show you that you’re wrong, would that cause you to re-evaluate any of the other things that you’re convinced about?
Until the 14th amendment the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government and states were free to establish churches, quarter soldiers, and regulate guns as they saw fit. Most of the the Western town’s antigun laws were passed during a period before case law clarifying that the Bill of Rights did apply to them.
They still only apply to governments so private entities can restrict any rights they want to.
The National Gd would drive the Founders crazy. It is now a part of the Army, exactly what the Founders didnt want. So the modern national guard is the exact opposite of a Militia.
Militias were mostly raised by states, and a few states still have them. Militias were also raised by some large cities and a few individuals.
The Militia act did make all able bodies men part of the Militia.
Other nations dont have the media that glorifies the shooters like we do. Peer reviewed published studies by noted sociologists have shown the in America, the media is what is causing the mass shootings. I have cited them several times.
How about the 500000 Americans who die every year from smoking, 50000 of them by second hand smoke? And tobacco isnt protected by the Constitution.
Nope. I don’t believe I am wrong and there is nothing that you could tell me that would change my mind. Why should I be the only person to change his mind about gun control?
The media causes them? Hardy har har. I don’t think the shooters are glorified at all. Their names and faces get attention, just as Booth and Oswald did. When their motivation becomes known, such as the racist attacks inspired by one Donald J. T***p, that becomes public. But to say they are glorified is an overstatement.
I think it’s a logical fallacy to state that nothing can or should be done about gun violence as long as other means of death are possible.
Yes, and that;s what they want. They are suicides that want to make a name for themselves, and the media give it to them.
It’s what we call “science”.
The Media Is an Accomplice in School Shootings
School shootings are a contagion. And the media are consistent accomplices in most every one of them.
There’s really no useful debate on the point. The consensus of social scientists since David Phillips’ groundbreaking work in 1974 is that highly publicized stories of deviant and dangerous behavior influences copycat incidents. Phillips’ and scores of subsequent studies showed, for example, that suicide rates spike in the week after an inappropriately publicized celebrity suicide. Contrast this trend with no increase in suicides in the week following a media strike that unintentionally suppresses such coverage.
The same is true of school massacres. On Groundhog Day, Feb 2, 1996 a 14-year-old boy walked into his Moses Lake, Washington, Junior High School algebra class and started shooting. He killed his teacher, two classmates and severely wounded another student. Subsequent media coverage obsessed over the color of his clothes, his insidious planning and the inventory of his arsenal. In addition, they practically offered a how-to guide for concealing and deploying weapons in a coat. But what got the most attention was the fact that after shooting his teacher, he delivered a line from the Stephen King novel Rage with charismatic panache. Suddenly, the invisible adolescent was a cultural icon. Within a week, another shooting occurred that clearly echoed that of Feb 2. Then another on February 19. Another on March 11. Yet another on March 13. Along with other similarities, more than one of the apparent copycats also cited King’s novel as a creative resource.*
https://psmag.com/news/does-the-media-cause-mass-shootings
A growing body of research suggests that increasingly intense media coverage of mass shootings is partly responsible for their acceleration in the United States…With this in mind, it’s safe to posit that increased exposure to media reports surrounding mass murders have precipitated the rise of copycat killers. There seems to be a correlation between the rise in mass murders and structural expansions in the media with the emergence of the 24-hour cable news cycle
*A mass shooting is a complex and destructive act that occurs as a result of many factors. One factor that is relevant to the spread of mass shootings and other “contagious” behaviors is generalized imitation. In instances of mass shootings, the media appear largely responsible for providing the model to imitate. Although there are a variety of strategies that could function in tandem to alter the likelihood of a mass shooting, changing the way the media report mass shootings is one important step in preventing and reducing imitation of these acts. Furthermore, it is likely that media-prompted imitation extends beyond mass shootings. A media effect has been shown with suicide, is implied in mass shootings, and may play a role in other extreme events such as home-grown terrorism and racially motivated crimes.
The responsibility for these acts does not reside with the media, but the media are an important vector for the spread of such behaviors.*
Maybe I don’t understand your question. Having a militia is in service of the security of a free State. The right to keep and bear arms is so we can have a militia.
TRtKaBA is, according to the Constitution, a necessary pre-condition for a well-regulated militia. If the militia isn’t acting to secure a free state, then it should be fixed so it does. But, again according to the Constitution, it can’t be fixed by infringing on tRtKaBA.
Maybe you don’t agree. That’s fine, but then according to the Constitution, you’re wrong. TRtKaBA is necessary by definition. You need to convince a large majority that you are right and the Constitution is wrong. That can happen - slavery is an example of how people figured out the Constitution was wrong, and fixed it. But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You don’t get to say it’s wrong all by yourself, or even with a lot of other people. You need enough other people to amend the Constitution.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s their “natural right”. Would you deny them their natural rights? This entire thread is about the inherently inviolable nature of natural rights, which do not require Constitutional protection. Except when they do. And those that are explicitly protected are of the same intrinsic value, unchanging, despite march of time and social progress, immune from revision.
No it’s not. And the “natural right” is the right to defend yourself as SCOTUS has made clear.
That’s kind of the point. You asserted that no one has changed their mind. I asked if I demonstrated that people have changed their mind, would you re-evaluate. You’ve answered in the negative. It’s your prerogative to have a faith based position, of course.
In what way does the current armed populace (a well-regulated militia, according to the Const. and you) function in service of the free State? What efforts have been made to maintain it regulation and readiness since the inception of the TRtKaBA? What steps are being considered by its supporters to fix and maintain it?
I hope to see TRtKaBA significantly restricted or abolished in my lifetime. Seems the numbers of people who agree with that position are growing in size and vigor.
They protect their own homes and families.
That would mean abolishing the 2nd Ad for no good purpose.
And there it is. Thank you for saying so, on the record.
From who?.. Ze Germans?