A situation that’s not likely to change with a gun ban. The city of Chicago has a gun ban, and there are still plenty of people being shot to death on a regular basis…one just yesterday, as a matter of fact.
OK, so who’s in the militia?
From 10 USC 311:
It’s also notable to point out that people can remain in the military until age 60, and after that senior citizens consist of the largest group of voters in the United States and would not look kindly upon being disarmed, especially since they are among the people.
You remember, the people? Those whose rights shall not be infringed? Yeah, I thought you remembered them.
Why do you guys drag out the same tired arguments? I understand that you must have something to hang your hats on, but you simply must do better than this.
Did you ever see how many laws we have regulating guns? Or proscribing crimes? Unfortunately, we must wait for them to commit a crime for them to become criminals. The presumption of innocence can be a real bitch sometimes, can’t it?
There are laws covering virtually every kind of gun and all aspects of possession in every part of this country. There is nothing in this country as “well regulated” as guns.
Nobody’s doing that.
The issue isn’t whether individuals are expected to own guns, and it isn’t where individuals can use guns. The issue is whether individuals have a right to own guns. Even if you only accept that individuals can own guns for use in a militiia you are still acknowledging that it is the individuals who have the right to own them. It is the indivdiuals who have the right to own guns, not the militia. John Q. Public the individual can have a firearm in his keeping, he doesn’t have to rely on the use of one that is in the keeping of a militia. He may not be able to use it anywhere but during militia drills and training, but he has an unassailable right to keep that firearm.
And are all those laws unconstitutional?
Except (1) we don’t live in Federalist times, nor did the framers expect that we always would, and (2) the militia is now the National Guard, and has been since 1903.
No argument about that. Of historical interest only, though.
Ahem. They may arguably not be Constitution-based arguments, but they are *legal * nonetheless. There are many topics upon which the Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits a right, and one of them is the legality of nonmilitia arms.
Nor is anyone doing that who is pointing out that the right it guarantees exists only within strictly prescribed limits, outside of which it is silent. Please do not misrepresent the arguments you oppose.
Not necessary. The National Guard is hardly contrary to the public safety, even armed - it’s pretty well-regulated, dontcha know.
But if you want a right to bear arms to be guaranteed outside the scope defined in the text of the Constitution itself, then you *do * need to amend that. Or else deal with it in the world of law, and the political process that makes it.
Clear enough now?
Who said anything about “total”? There is no argument bieng made that I’m aware of, certainly not by me, that the National Guard should be disarmed.
So what do you suggest?
As far as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals? I have no idea. But keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens isn’t accomplishing any goal that I can discern.
ETA: Not that it matters, because, as pointed out earlier in the thread, you can’t have unconstitutional laws just because you think it might have a positive social outcome.
No, not yet. Depends on how far the SCOTUS goes when they decide. I’m fairly confident they will support an individual right. And I do not think that the instant background check or the disenfranchisement of felons and persons who violate the Lautenberg Amendment are in any way unconstitutional, or some laws relating to carrying in elementary and secondary schools, courthouses, and private property.
I do object to tacit bans by allegedly allowing something but giving people no way to avail themselves of it, bans based upon cosmetic absurdities like in 1994, and bans that leave permissions to someone who can deny people capriciously while approving others (like in San Francisco, who licensed Dianne Feinstein, ironically enough).
I am not anti-regulation. I am anti-tortured arguments and specious justifications. Making it an individual right does not eliminate lawful controls, it simply removes ridiculous obstacles to ownership like DC’s total ban on handguns.
So your position is that the the amendment is intended to state that a militia completely controlled by a despotic giovernment is essential to the maintainence of a free state? Or are you implying that the framers of that amendment thought that in the event of the rise of a despotic government the a National Guard type militia would somehow be more of deterrent than an army, to which it is identical in every way except name?
Becauseif you aren’t supporting one of those positions I’m having a hard time understanding how you are reading it. An armed militia is required to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government with an army. You seem to be saying that simply by re-naming that army “National Guard”: we have somehow prevented tyranny, even thought he army remains comepletely and utterly in the control of the despotic government itself.
You’re wrong there. Airman Doors already quoted 10 USC 311, which includes every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 in the militia of the United States.
Ban every firearm except muskets.
But you have just stated the pro gun-control position. The anti gun-control side explicitly argues that such is NOT the case. Their argument is that the right is NOT limited to gun use in a militia, but rather is an unrestricted right. This is the very crux of the argument.
Sure thing. Just get that pesky 2nd Amendment repealed along with amendments in virtually every state constitution and we’ll get right on it.
And I’m sure you’ll join me in calling for a ban on every communications device except the manual printing press. Hurrah!
:rolleyes:
It refers to the right to keep an bear arms. Not the right to keep and bear muskets.
Of all the ridiculous readings this one is easily the stupidest and most tortured. The writers were not idiots, they knew that weapons technology was advancing and had been for centuries, even at the time of writing muskets were already being superceded by rifles. The idea that it somehow be read as referring only to the most common militia weapon of the day is not only baseless it demands that we assuem thr writers were ignorant fools.
Nooo. I was actualy discussing a very specific point raised.
But since you made the claim, I have never heard a gun control advocate state that they support every US citizen being able to keep a working M60 belt-fed machine gun and 3000 rounds of ammunition in their house, so long as they could only use it in local militia training. Can you please show me where any Gun Control group or popular advaocate has ever said that this is desirable? All the ones I now of want varying degrees of bans on private citizens owning firearms regardless of how, or even if, they ever use them. I have a hard time imagining Michael Moore saying that he has no problem with peopel owning any fireams they like and keeping them in their house, so long as they don’t use them for hunting. That isn’t a Gun Control argument, that is an animal rights argument.
So do you think the 2nd amendment should be interpreted to allow unrestricted ownership of thermonuclear weapons?
Seriously, Blake - we are in agreement. I absolutely agree that the 2nd Amendment enumerates a right for you to keep and bear arms, to the extent that you are participating in a state militia. And that makes it a collective right. Here’s the problem: state militias of the type that existed at that time do not exist anymore, and the case we are discussing isn’t about militias at all. If this were a case of a state militia that required people to bring their own guns, then I think you would have a valid point. But it’s not.
I wouldn’t use Micheal Moore as my guide. There are a number of published legal opinions that make convincing arguments for the collective-rights interpretation.
Do you think that you could construct more of a strawman argument if you tried?
I’ll play along, though.
Sure. If you can build the plant to manufacture the plutonium and tritium, obtain the various other sundry metals, obtain the explosives and detonators, and do it all in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which to the best of my knowledge does not forbid such ownership, and in compliance with the NRC regs on nuclear material, why not?
See, I can be just as absurd, only I put some effort into it. Why must that particular argument be made every single time we do this?
Not quite that far, but close. Any other interpretation requires us to accept that framers thought that the “Hitler Youth” were going to stop Hitler. After all that is what inevitably happens when you have a well regulated militia trained and armed by the state.
IMO the amendment was written for a time period that just doesn’t exist any more. For the amendment to have the intended effect individuals would need to be able to have anti-tank weapons an S-A missiles at the very least. I don’t personally think that is a good situation, but that is the clear intent of the amendment: the people should be able to keep and bear those arms necessary to overthrow a dictator, and in 2007 that means anti-tank and anti-aircraft armaments.
Realistically we need to accept that it is no longer applicable and scrap it altogether. The situation we have now is dishonest and dnagerous. We have an amendment that clearly states that individuals have a right to keep arms in their homes and countless laws that make it illegal for almost any citizen to keep arms in their homes being upheld on the most tortured readings. We need to be honest and we need to keep things legal. The current sotaution of simply ignoring what the constitution says or ducking the issue of the legality is absurd. If we get a ruling that clearlys states that individuals have a right to keep weapons in their homes then maybe people will vote to amend it. And if they don’t then that’s the price of democracy. People aren’t necessarily wrong because they disagree with me.