The point is, we differ on how to reduce violent crime.
The only sure way is to reduce poverty. This is a known fact.
Other methods, such as better mental health guidance may also help
Ending the costly and futile War on drugs would certainly reduce violent crime by a huge amount.
Gun control- might or might not reduce violent crime. So far, in the uSA, it has consistently failed.
So yeah, we all want to reduce violent crime. But I want to do it thru proven methods.
You? You just seem to be scared of guns and are blaming them for all the world’s ills.
The idea being that if sales of rifles and shotguns are legal for 18 to 20 year-olds, then the sale of handguns should also be legal to that age group.
In the U.S., it used to be the case that a person 18 or older could purchase and consume alcohol. States started raising it to 21 in the 1980s. I’m too lazy to look it up, but I think the federal government was withholding highway funds to each state unless it raised the age to 21.
Yes. Now I can see many issues with this, and it is not necessarily a good thing, but imagine if they had laws stating Blacks could not buy handguns or Natives buy booze.
I think I have made my position on guns pretty clear (that I am a strong Second Amendment supporter) but it seems absolutely silly to me to determine whether it is appropriate for a 20 year old to be able to buy a pistol from a licensed dealer in 2021 for home defense by referencing the age many or most states requiring militia services for males by reporting for duty with muskets in 1787. The two are similar in only the most superficial way.
I loved the result of the decision in Heller but its questionable rationale has put lower courts in this position.
Those that had not been at 21 all along – it was very much a state-by-state matter. I am just at the right age to have benefitted from “grandfathering” when the state where I went to school at the time moved up the age. And yes, to this day there is a “penalty” in the allocation of the federal highway fund for a state that does not do so. Totally “voluntary”, fo’ sho’
So the change to no handguns under 21 by federal mandate happens in '68. I suppose that before that if limited at all it would have been by when each state recognized legal civil adulthood at that given point in history.
So what we have is that at the end of the 60s we get the voting age lowered to 18, but buying handguns raised to 21 wherever it was not so already.
ISTM that during the time period between the late 60s and mid-80s the focus of tightening restrictions was in regards to handguns. The “easily-concealable cheap Saturday Night Special” was to that age what the “high capacity assault weapon” is to ours. You can notice that to this day where there are states where a handgun has requirements for permitting or certifications or extra waiting periods or even registration, that long arms don’t.
ISTM the whole deal with the hyperemphasis on the people’s militia language as THE foundation and source of light on the issue has such pitfalls; and it’s not as if it leads relentlessly to greater access, it has been used before to justify restrictions (e.g. “sawed-off shotguns are not legit militia weapons, you can outlaw them”).
But I suppose we should take it up with the founders. After all, they did not seem to find it necessary to preface other rights with a subordinate clause as to how they’d be useful to society. And here we are all these years later. Thanks a heap, guys
There’s probably no need to rehash what has been said a million times before. You and your side believe that the Second Amendment only protects guns for a militia purpose. I believe that the independent clause stands alone and even without the Second Amendment there is such a strong tradition of firearms ownership that the RKBA should stand on its own as a substantive right.
Instead of saying that JRDelirious is right, or that UltraVires is right, Heller contains an indecipherable mishmash of each with very little support for its odd analysis that the people have the right to own arms for self defense but those arms are to be interpreted with reference to the militia clause. Even such an odd interpretation should find that pistols are not militia weapons, and M16s are. But Heller gets that completely 180 the wrong way under its own terms.
And why would the arms suitable for militia duty be the same suitable for home and personal self defense, and likewise be the same for hunting and other pursuits? Experience clearly shows that they are not. Every application of almost any complex thing requires specialization based on the task. I don’t use the same printer in my office that Google would use in its office or that you would use in your home.
It is not our side’s argument that makes no sense, it is Heller’s reasoning. I love Scalia, but that opinion was just terrible, and this case illustrates that. Should a 20 year old be able to buy a pistol? Many good arguments on both sides for that. To find the answer in what a militia was composed of in 1787 is ridiculous IMHO.
Not really “my” side. I fully believe in the individual right for individual lawful purposes (self defense, sport, hunting), and that it should be the regulations or limitations, not the ownership by the person or the existence of the gear itself, that need to be justified; that such regulations and limitations can exist and should be based on public safety but must not be de facto confiscatory.
However when some people on the “2A community” keep reaching for the “people’s militia” argument, well yeah, I’ll point out that this has effects to it. (And yeah, we all agree Scalia did some amazing contortions there…)
Yes, because that is the wording that was agreed upon by the founders. The subject of the sentence is “well regulated militia”. It does not say ‘Congress will make no law regarding the abridgement of the right of the people to bear arms’.
There are no words of limitation there either that suggests that the people may only bear arms for a militia purpose. In fact, the text itself recognizes a preexisting right.
Note that it doesn’t say: “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the people are hereby granted the right to keep and bear arms.” It assumes a preexisting right “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and declares that it shall not be infringed.
So even if you repeal the Second Amendment entirely, the framers recognized this preexisting right.
Is it any more ridiculous than using the quartering practices of the British Army as an aid to interpret the 3rd Amendment?
When a text specifically refers to a militia as part of the rationale for a right, why is it ridiculous to ask what militias were like at the time the provision was drafted?
Yes, because the 3rd Amendment speaks of quartering soldiers and only quartering soldiers. Nothing else to unpack there. I suppose if you had a time of war when “by law” there was quartering of soldiers you would have to dig deeper and see what was meant by that and what the modern day equivalent was (do the soldiers get a Wi-Fi password?)
Because the Second Amendment does not define or cast any light on the preexisting right to keep and bear arms, it uses the militia example to illustrate why Congress should not infringe upon it. It never says that it is the only reason Congress shouldn’t infringe it. It addressed the specific issue that the framers feared as to why Congress may want to infringe upon that right.
The militia system was completely discredited during the war with Mexico and was subsequently abandoned. It is no longer “necessary for the security of a free state”. The “right” was created only in the context of a military expedient during the frontier period of an agricultural society.
The second amendment is an anachronism, but it is treated as an absolute religious icon. Rational attempts to provide well regulated weapon ownership are crucified on the cross of the second amendment.
San Jose CA is taking small steps in the right direction.
The Founders qualified the ‘right’ with the phrase ‘well regulated’. The point of the OP is that regulation makes it possible for citizens to bear arms in a modern society. Just as various laws regulating transport make free movement possible and accounting standards make the economy possible.
You utterly ignored my prior comment. The right to keep and bear arms was not “created” by the Second Amendment.
Further, assuming your comments about the militia are correct, your conclusory statement that the RKBA just goes poof has no support. The text of the Second Amendment does not restrict the RKBA only and solely within a militia context. It is prefatory and explanatory.
If someone says, “People should work because it builds character,” would you interpret that to mean that the sole purpose of work is character building? That the work serves no other purpose?
The subject of the sentence is people, the verb is work and the object is character. The sentence deals with character as an objective of work in the context of people. The second amendment deals with the bearing arms as a right in the context of well regulated militias.
I did not ignore your post. It is simply not correct. The second amendment creates the right of militia members to bear arms. By what authority is bearing arms by the general population a pre-existing right? Perhaps the new testament.
Check out texts on the reasons for the southern invasion of Mexico rather than expanding the Texas front. Also the conflict between the IL and LDS militias.