Ever read the Declaration of Independence?
Yes. It is a revolutionary document with no legal or constitutional force or significance of any kind.
Really? 4 out of 5 dentist would disagree with you. Along with probably every historian. If you are a US citizen, you should have your citizenship revoked.
That’s interesting. Non-American doper here. I have so far mostly stayed out of your gun debates, because it seems to be a specifically American issue. But since you suggest we learn from your stance on guns, I’d like to know what exactly it is that we could learn? What benefits would an European nation reap, if we adopted the same policy on firearms that the US have?
You’re kidding, right? Perhaps what you meant to say was “there are so many [del]gun laws[/del] guns in this country it’s [del]virtually[/del] totally impossible to keep track of them all.”
But by all means, let’s look at these awesome restrictions. I understand the disdain with which Americans look at gun control as it exists in every civilized country on earth, and their obstreperous insistence that having several hundred million guns in circulation like so many candy bars has absolutely nothing to do with tens of thousands of their fellow citizens getting shot every year, no sirree, it’s gotta be something else. Most likely, the problem is not having enough guns. :rolleyes: I get it, this the Gospel of the NRA and it is preached in this and every other gun thread. But I can tell you that to any outsider looking in, the US doesn’t just lack meaningful gun control, it lacks it in a way that is just jaw-droppingly stunning, in a way that causes anyone not already conditioned to it to think that surely this couldn’t be real, surely they must have heard it wrong or read it wrong.
For example:
In virtually any advanced nation, all firearms must be licensed, and can only be transported under strict rules – generally unloaded, locked up, and only for the specific purpose of getting them from point “A” to point “B”. Handguns are extremely restricted and for all practical purposes ordinary citizens cannot and do not own them, and even if they do, they sure as hell can’t carry them around.
And in the US? Not only can anyone go out and buy a handgun, concealed carry is allowed in the vast majority of states – 7 states don’t even require a permit, almost all the rest have “shall-issue” laws. Open carry is even worse – I think something like 25 states require no permit at all for open carry of a loaded handgun in public, and most of the rest readily permit it under license. Which leads to reckless yahoos like these walking around in public, or this idiot ready for a gunfight at the OK Corral. In any country that I know of these morons would be arrested on the spot and charged with serious firearms violations and do some serious jail time. Yes, that’s freedom – freedom to go out in public and not be confronted by dangerous yahoos.
Obviously you have a different philosophy. Fine. Just understand that when you claim that the US has “TONS” of gun restrictions, you’re not talking about anything meaningful. What the US indisputably has “tons” of is gun fatalities.
You mistake me - I’m satirizing the pithy content-less statement that I quoted.
As a real response - UK would first need a constitutional form of government which I understand does not quite exist. I think that’s a benefit. Then, self defense being recognized as a right would be a benefit. My understanding now is thatthere is no legal way to possess an item designed for self defense in the UK - maybe a bright colored dye. But my point was not to engage an analysis of foreign governments because I generally don’t care how they arrange their laws. The time when I start to investigate further is when our President praises the confiscation schemes that UK and Australia enacted since it reveals what the true motivations of gun control actually are.
On edit I see I missed you say European when my response was UK focused. Not sure how to modify that since I’m not familiar with European rules and culture enough to respond in more depth.
Do not worry. Even though I live on the continent I consider the Islanders to be part of Europe (whether they like it or not ;)). So your reply was not missing the mark.
On the topic: You say that American legislation would give citizens in the UK the option to own items designed for self defense. But would you not agree that these items are merely a means to an end and not an end in itself? Do the UK citizens of the UK today suffer from their alleged defenselessness? I admit I have no current figures at hand, but my impression is that the numbers of British who fall victim to violent crimes are not excessive - certainly not when compared to the US. So maybe not having these “defense-weapons” does not leave them in a worse spot after all?
The DOI has no legal or constitutional significance of any kind. No lawyer would disagree.
Your understanding is wrong. The right to self-defense is recognized as a right and a prime legal defense in the UK and every other advanced country I know of, and moreover, the relative absence of guns greatly increases everyone’s safety by many orders of magnitude compared to the US, as statistics will plainly verify. But with regard to self-defense, here are some pertinent points:
In England and Wales, anyone can use “reasonable” force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act “honestly and instinctively” in the heat of the moment. “Fine judgements” over the level of force used are not expected, says the Crown Prosecution Service.
What this means in practice is that someone can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong.
Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. These guidelines also apply if someone, in the spur of the moment, picks up an item to use as a weapon. The law very clearly says that a householder is not expected to weigh up the arguments for and against in the heat of the moment - but they have to show that their actions were reasonable in the moment.
In justifiable circumstances this even applies to using a gun:
The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge. The judge at the intruders’ trial said: "If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take.
Laws are similar in most other countries. What you can NOT do is go out waving guns around in public places, like the dangerous yahoos I showed in post #185. Not even if someone feels it necessary to wave big guns around to compensate for their perceived shortcomings in physical endowment.
I should have been more clear to avoid the sophistic nitpicking. In response to the question:
Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?
The UK Police site says:
Do you disagree with that? Specifically, this question is most likely directed for use outside the home, but again, I don’t actually care about UK laws.
To continue the theme of pedantic sophistry - there is no “waving” going on in those pictures. People can’t wave their guns around in public places in the US either. Those are slung rifles, and a holstered handgun. I’m not a fan of open carry rifles, but as a giant middle finger to folks like Everytown, I’m not going to protest against it.
The question of public places vs. your own home is rather a crucial one when it comes to rights, don’t you agree? You seem to want to focus the discussion not to the matter of self-defense per se, but on the right to buy purpose-built lethal or injurious weapons and carry them around in public. No, you cannot carry lethal or purpose-built injurious weapons around in public, either in the UK or any other first-world nation I know of. It’s called “civilization”. Except in the US, of course, where anyone can buy and carry whatever the hell they want.
In the home, there is no shortage of items that can legally be used in self-defense, including, possibly, a gun – yes, even in the UK. These arguments always seem to come down to, “spare me the logic – I want to own a gun, and carry it with me everywhere because it makes me feel good and I want to love it and pet it and call it ‘George’. Plus, I really like shooting stuff.” The number of actually valid arguments for guns that I’ve seen still numbers approximately zero. The arguments against guns number about 34,000 a year.
Would you feel better if I said “prominently displayed” instead of “waved around”? Speaking of pedantic sophistry. 
Then why didn’t they have to amend the constitution to force elected state officials to give gay people marriage licenses?
And, going back further, why it it that on October 21, 1968, pot smokers – and convicted felons – could legally buy firearms in most states, and on October 22 (after LBJ signed the Gun Control Act of 1968) they legally couldn’t? Sounds to me like infringement of a right, an infringement most non-pot-smoking gun owners seem to like.
And going back further, how the heck did this get enacted, without judicial challenge, less than seven years after the Bill of Rights were ratified:
http://www.constitution.org/rf/sedition_1798.htm
The answer is that the US Constitution is interpreted by political appointees chosen because of their views, by elected officials chosen for their views. There is no justification for high schools repeating that high-minded false blather, made at Supreme Court confirmation hearings, about balls and strikes.
The gun cases in 2008 and 2010 were decided 5-4. Everyone knows that future case law will be determined by who is elected to the presidency and the Senate, not by the wording of the Constitution. That’s what an astounding number of people don’t know.
Now, there are ways to limit the degree of judicial lawmaking. One is to write a much longer and more specifically worded Constitution. Want to make sure Heller doesn’t get overturned? I’d suggest you better elect Republicans. But, by your own logic, I think you have got to get that militia clause removed, and put in detailed specifics about who can be denied arms instead of the too-sweeping-to-take-literally “shall not be infringed.”
Also, you could try to amend the Constitution so the justices are selected by a non-partisan judicial selection commission.
Free speech? We have as much as our elected officials and their appointees grant us. What’s true for gun rights is true for that as well.
OK. This part of my last post makes no sense at all. Damn that five minute edit limit.
Every decision has a cost and a benefit. With the rationale you’ve laid out do you understand you’ve only looked at one side of the equation?
Not really, no. And I mean, I don’t care - just returning the favor of the nit that you picked. I know what you meant which was conveyed just fine - as I suspect you knew what I meant.
The original question ‘what could Europe learn from the US’ spawned from flippant mockery of BG’s content-free contribution. The point about Europe was that they could learn a constitutional protection of the right to use and possess weapons for self defense. Right now, places like the UK do not have that.
The pesky colonial took over 6 years (from Concorde to Yorktown) to effectively win. Without direct intervention of a major power (French naval and ground forces) at Yorktown likely things take longer. In a little over 4 years Assad has lost half or more of his military and has no effective control over the majority of his country. Even if international assistance saves him,his victory or loss is irrelavant to the key point of debate. I’m not asserting that insurgents always win. I’m asserting that they can still be successful. 20th century insurgencies both succeeded and failed. What’s fundamentally different about 21st Century insurgencies in your opinion?
Mao said insurgencies were 80% political and 20% military. Current US military doctrine questions assigning a number but fundamentally agrees with the primacy of the political within insurgencies. Still the military piece is what separates insurgency from normal democratic processes, and we’re looking at the question of arming the populace. Let’s compare some aspects:
- Force densities (using wiki population and military sizes). Syria at the start of the war had a a touch over 14 troops per 1,000 citizens. The US has a touch under 7 per thousand with all reserve components mobilized for the duration. The US also has overseas obligations to support interests that could cause other issues if they committed every troop. That limits troops available for COIN. In addition I used 2013 US military numbers and we’re in the process of a drawdown. Why does it matter? The Institute for Defense Analyses conducted a study of historical insurgencies (pdf cite) and found:
The Syrian military has issues with force density. The US military has much bigger issues… (To be clear, you disagree with the US military in your assessment of US military COIN capability.) Advantage Syria.
Troop to area density. It’s not a major point of COIN doctrine which focuses on population not terrain. Its speaks to some of the ability to use forces efficiently since both countries have issues with force densities. Syria had 1 troop per .57 km^2. The US has 1 per 4.38 km^s if they use everyone. For a urban focused insurgency it’s likely meaningless. For a rural based insurgency that US vastness can be an issue. I’m going to assume that given the urban/rural political opinion divide that the rural piece will be strong. Advantage Syria.
The US desperately needs great intelligence gathering and dissemination systems to use their undersized for the mission military efficiently. They have them. Clear advantage US.
The US has overwhelming tactical overmatch due to great equipment combined with great training. Syria…not so much. In Syria the insurgents have quickly transitioned to third stage/mobile operations (characterizing by Mao’s stages of revolutionary war.) Doing that in the US would lead to a lot of dead insurgents. That quality difference likely narrows if the US tries to triple the size of their military to meet force density minimums. Assuming the insurgents are reasonably smart, or the survivors of early attempts learn to pick their fights, it’s a slight advantage US.
Syria’s senior military leaders are part of the regime with their fortunes and lives closely tied to it, right or wrong. Their troops are draftees caught between the regime and the rebels. Every member of the US military takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” If the nature of the insurgency is driven by a serious constitutional crisis that can split the loyalty of the US military. Individuals would have to wrestle with the dilemma between duty and orders. Depending on the nature of the insurgency that’s neutral or advantage Syria.
Logistics, because, after all, military professionals study logistics. Syria buys their weapons and military specific consumable items. As long as they can pay or Russia extends credit their supporting military-industrial complex is outside the Area of Operations and reasonably safe. The US makes it’s own stuff and for some items there’s no foreign supplier producing them. That makes the US military-industrial complex vulnerable to attack, sabotage, and “discouragement” of it’s work force. Advantage Syria.
Overwhelmingly the populace has assented to the rule of law while things are still operating within the system. The fringe that talk rebellion/insurgency have overwhelmingly confined themselves to methods of opposition that don’t include use of force at this time. Assessing the hypothetical viability of all potential US insurgencies by the fact that one hasn’t started seems odd. At best that looks at the likelihood of one starting not it’s capability.
I know it’s easy to just stereotype everyone in to one small, simplistic box. It’s misses some key pieces. You can support doing things within the system and still support having the ability to use violence against forces that may subvert the system. I fully support using every method available to protect and preserve the integrity of the democratic process. I include Clausewitzian methods (politics by other means) as a last resort. It’s better to talk, campaign, sue, etc than shoot. If shooting is the only realistic option IMO that’s still better than living under tyranny.
If you care to comment, why should I give a damn about undrafted versions of the 2nd? You keep giving me these links like they mean something, all I see is a guy trying to use newsletters to add stuff into the Constitution that’s not there.
In fact, you’re probably not aware that there was a “pre-Constitution”, the Articles of Confederation, from where many of the Constitution’s eventual ratified articles followed. Unlike your newsletters, this was actually the law in the US for about 7 years. Early debate on the founding of this country had two major sides, the Federalists which wanted a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists who favored a weaker one because they didn’t want this country to turn into a monarchy.
Even during the ratification process, there were a number of states, most famously New York and Virginia, whose votes were very close. I’m sure if you dig around, you’ll find plenty of very important people writing about all sorts of issues pertaining to the eventual Constitution that became the law of the land. And yet here you sit trying to convince me I should care about it, as if picking and choosing specific letters that support you has any meaning outside of your own head, when I could do the same. You’re probably also not even aware one of the first unratified bills that made it all the way to the 1st Congress strictly set the provisions of the number of representatives each state was to have, and yet here we are in 2015 with a mere 535 Congressmen instead of the 9000+ that we would have had. The point is that there are a lot of writings by everyone at that time regarding the eventual Constitution that we got. All of those writings are important historical notes that helps us understand what happened back then, but in terms of the legal power of those words they are as empty as yours on this message board
Next time you want to quote a Founder on guns, tell me how many of them favored black people owning them
That, again like your personal definition of “well trained Militia” was a belief among some Founders but ultimately not put into the Constitution. In fact while many Founders were scared of having a standing army in peacetime, believing that to be one of the greatest threats to freedom, they still ended up ratifying Congressional powers to hold a standing army. I’m sure guys like Hamilton had a lot of reservations about things like universal training, but even he in the Federalist #29 favored the so-called militia to be regulated, saying that “it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.” Yet again, I ask, what regulations do you favor we have on guns that you would actually support, and not just give pithy non-objection to?
Elsewhere, he calls it foolish for one to be afraid of federal regulation when, as in his proposal, the states appoint the officers?
Again, maybe not a fan of regulations on arms, but he is not against them unlike some people here.
Its pretty funny because after reading the Federalist #29, I can see that the man makes a lot of good points, but not for you, for my side. Like Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Hamilton bemoans the future should things not fall his way:
Since we do have a standing army, I ask as Hamilton did back then: what need of the militia? Rhetorical flourish for sure, as he was saying that in defiance of a regulated army, yet here we are in 2015. We have a regulated army, its not going away, it protects us, and we have a regulated National Guard, and local police. It seems that by Hamilton’s own logic, we need no militia anymore.
Unfortunately for you, Hamilton makes an argument in this paper similar to what I’ve been saying, which is that what is favored by him, what is proposed and debated on, is not the actual Constitution itself. Those things count, the debate helps, but ultimately, does not count.
See? Even he knew he was just talking, but that ultimately the decision was not up to him. There were people who disagreed with Hamilton that you’ve conveniently ignored.
And even Hamilton himself was not against using violent means to suppress rebellion. I know we’re discussing what a militia means and you being wrong, but it helps to point out that when push comes to shove, it is an army raised by the federal government that put down internal dissent such as during the Whiskey Rebellion. He published arguments under a pen name that denounced mob violence and advocated for military action. That shows to me that whatever you want to call a militia, it is not free to run around as it pleases doing things like refusing to pay taxes but is subservient to a federal government which directs and regulates them. But then this was 3 years after the publication of the Federalist #29 so I’m guessing he wasn’t such a naive young hippie anymore and knew that actual governing required laws and regulation
Far more than the vague definition of a militia, many Founders were much more against the idea of a standing army, yet that made it in when Article 1, Section 8 was ratified to allow Congress the power to raise money to do just that. No less than the “Father of the Constitution” James Madison said in 1787 that: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty” yet the Constitution said nuts to that and allowed Congress the power to do just that. Whether you agree to that or not, the fact remains that Madison (and others) were against many things that we now take for granted as necessary, proving yet again that listening to these guys might be historically interesting but we need not follow what they believe. So you wan to quote Hamilton all day and night? Do so, but its irrelevant. We have a multiple militias, they are all well regulated. We don’t need anybody running around with guns no matter what Hamilton wanted.
But one last Hamilton quote, supporting training and regulation. From the very beginning of the Federalist #29:
Bold is mine, but Hamilton is the one shouting in all caps, apparently he affords these papers with the same gravity as a Youtube comment section
Don’t need to. It is easier to restrict guns and ban certain types than to go through the Amendment process, and there is nothing wrong with that. Unless you want to tell me which Amendment expressly specifically bans sedition, this another area where you guys try to mislead people into thinking there’s only one correct way of doing things. I would also argue that banning specific types of guns does not go against either the spirit or letter of the 2nd Amendment because nowhere does it say that you have the right to all types of weapons available at all times. You want to defend yourself? Have a rifle, but no handguns.
Handguns are one type of guns just as child porn is one type of porn. I’ll admit one thing, this is completely subjective as to whether one considers a handgun ban to be broad or narrow, but once again I’ve brought arguments and evidence in support of my stance and you have simply your unsupported beliefs. Explain why child porn is specific and handguns are not.
And its funny you should cite Heller, as that happened in 2008. Don’t you have some Founders to cite for that because apparently only their opinion matters? To respond to that, its great that Heller was decided recently because just as likely could the SCOTUS decide the other way. I’m sure if they do, you would fully support their reasoning, right? Because its odd to me that such a fundamental tool of self-defense, as you call it, wasn’t even on the radar of the Founders. I guess they didn’t have self-defense back then because they had no handguns back then? And if in the future we have ray guns that can shoot people from a mile away with 100% accuracy, I’m sure you’ll use Heller to cite that even those future guns, again not even part of the original case, is fundamental despite them not existing at the time of the decision. (For the record, don’t construe this to be a support or opposition of any one particular case or decision. My contention has always been that all laws are fluid, only people who want the laws frozen in time cite a specific decision they agree with as the truth, instead of agreeing that all reinterpretations of the law is legally valid in process even if we don’t agree with the results). So you think Heller’s great, fine, how about you can have all the guns legal now but never shall any new type of firearm or form of defense invented in the future be legal?
Its not about ignoring it, I am not generally in favor of ignoring laws that are legal. I do think some need to be challenged, through illegal means if necessary, but those laws are few and far between and are usually very damaging. With guns, I’m in favor of using all legal means to restrict it without going through the very difficult act of a new amendment. Taking the actual words in the 2nd and translating them into actual laws and rules that must be done is not nearly the underhanded tactic you guys want to paint it as
And what is your reasoning in favor of removing such rights from some people? What other groups can we remove gun rights from that you would agree with?
“unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device”;
OR. You forgot OR. Yet another instance of gun rights people misleading others. To me, trigger locks should be mandatory on all guns, just as cars now must all come with seat belts. I no longer think this law is hilarious as it seems to be very reasonable.
What they mean is that if there’s any argument about what the Founders were intending when they passed the Second Amendment, the early drafts that had different wording give us some clues. Unless, as I asked earlier, you really believe that the final draft was a 180-degree turnaround from the earlier versions.
If you can find ONE SINGLE cite from the period that argues that the population should be disarmed and only a small cadre of government-approved men should have guns, please post it here.
Sadly, the Founders generally neglected any civil rights for black people; guns are hardly unique in that respect.
And that was bitterly controversial. In the end Hamilton’s arguments that it just wasn’t practical to have zero federal troops won out; but for a very long time the federal Army was tiny and did little but man frontier posts.
And yet even when the practice of the yearly muster became moribund, nobody at the time held that that meant the populace had forfeited a right to own weapons.
I’ve posted it a couple of times, I’ll repeat it here:
"I could see requiring anyone who owns a gun to have to report for “militia” duty, which would consist of a training and certification class. If they pass, they’re certified for the next 4-5 years. If they fail, they have to keep coming back every month until they get it right. If they’re caught lying about owning a gun, they get a big fat fine and the maximum non-felony sentence (12 months iirc).
In principle it would apply to everyone, except for those exempted or disqualified. One class of exemption would be people willing to swear that they don’t own a gun and don’t plan to get one, who promise to notify the testing agency if they do acquire a gun, and the aforementioned penalties for so swearing falsely.
it would be entirely in line with the Founding Father’s vision of an armed populace, and technically there would be no list of people with guns- just a list of people without. "
You’ve taken the quote out of context. In that paragraph Hamilton is addressing those who objected to the new Constitution giving the federal government joint authority with the states to call out the militia. He’s referencing the previous paragraphs in which he mentions fears of the federal government having either a tyrannical professional army, or being able to force the militia to enslave their fellow citizens. What Hamilton is saying there is, “If these hypothetical tyrants had this huge army, why would they need the militia?”
That it would be impossible to actually hold people in prison if it wasn’t an accepted principle that in lieu of execution or maiming (the original punishments for felonies), the convicted forfeit their rights for the duration of their sentence. As for children and the mentally ill, the legal standard is are they considered capable of being legally responsible for their actions?
And what force of law do these discussions have? If they are not in the Constitution, are we prevented somehow from reinterpreting it to how we see fit?
And why should I care when a lot of them also didn’t want a standing army or thought blacks were citizens? Your problem is that you’ll only quote Founders who you agree with to support your argument and ignore any who disagree. Given the lack of a standing army at the time, its no surprise that they supported an armed citizenry. My question has always been why that matters now, when we have a standing army and black people can vote
Yes, that is very sad. Why aren’t you quoting them and saying we should care what the Founders thing about the subject of racial civil rights? I’d like to hear your reasoning for completely disregarding their beliefs on the matter. And don’t cop out and say we have the 14th Amendment now, the Founders obviously would have been against that
So too is it bitterly controversial to have unfettered gun rights now, yet your side still quotes the Founders on that like its going out of fashion. Again, I don’t care what the Founders think about guns or anything, they left us a government capable of disregarding their own views through legal means. Using that process should never be considered underhanded
So according to you, Hamilton basically said people should have gather for training, but its totally cool if people ignored that? I’m feeling better and better about my decision to ignore him because apparently all of his writings were merely suggestions
Who would conduct the training? I’m for the feds doing it, not states or local.
Also, have you ever promoted the law on these boards or elsewhere as a gun law we should have, and not simply as a trivia answer when challenged to produce what laws you’d support. Basically, I want to know if you’re seriously championing this law somewhere, or just want it to deflect criticism when asked if you support any gun law anywhere
Also, a couple of real laws. Would you support overturning the law Congress enacted to protect gun manufacturers from being sued? And Congress also does not allow the CDC to conduct gun studies, would you support overturning that and allowing them to do studies again?
I know that’s the point he’s trying to make, but in doing so he accidentally illustrates another. That’s why I find the quote enlightening, because it accidentally tells us how he really feels. Should a tyrannical professional army like he’s opposed to be the norm, the power of the people to usurp the government would be crushed. By design, that’s what the standing army does. But while he sees that as a bad thing, I see it as a good, and the power of professional armies overwhelming the population is not in question, so that now, in 2015, we have one, what need is there for an armed populace? Its useless and only serves to allow people to kill each other.
That it would be impossible to actually hold people in prison if it wasn’t an accepted principle that in lieu of execution or maiming (the original punishments for felonies), the convicted forfeit their rights for the duration of their sentence. As for children and the mentally ill, the legal standard is are they considered capable of being legally responsible for their actions?
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t aware there is a national minimum age of gun ownership. Is there one? What age is it? And are you in favor of it?
By the way, we’re not done talking about Hamilton yet. Tell me again why I should care at all what he thinks, when he was dead wrong about black people? Why shouldn’t we be allowed to reinterpret the 2nd to ban specific types of guns? He couldn’t even see that men in front of his face were actual men, and probably gave women not a second thought when it comes to rights. And this guy you’re holding up as some inassailable arbiter of the moral righteousness of the law? Why should we listen to what he says at all?
“Reinterpreting” again. REINTERPRETING :mad: Ok, why are we prevented? Because a hell of lot of people don’t want the Constitution “reinterpreted”, stand mouths agape at the suggestion, and feel that the issue in question is a matter of fundamental freedoms and rights, not a routine matter like what the speed limit on the Interstate should be.
Because of your blind insistence that the Second Amendment only applies to a regimented body of state troops. In scores of posts in dozens of threads plausible arguments have been put forward why that is almost certainly incorrect; yet apparently you simply don’t care. You evidently can’t comprehend an armed populace as a feature not a bug.
The legal means for changing our minds is AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. Why? Because doing so is proof that a minority that temporarily holds the reins of power isn’t cramming an unwanted “reform” down the throats of the majority.
I’d love to see this modern version of “militia duty” be enacted. Unfortunately I have no idea where to begin.
No. The law was passed to prevent an abuse of the civil lawsuit system. Holding companies limitlessly responsible for the tertiary results of their business would open a can of worms that would have no end.
I’d have to look into exactly what that law says and the justifications offered for it. Later.
You’re… actually… GLAD that our current armed forces could overturn democracy and install a dictatorship??? :eek:
I presume the age of majority varies from state to state; usually it’s 17-21.
Why should we care about that old-fashioned “freedom of speech” thing? Or even that laughably quaint notion that the Federal government has no authority not expressly given it? You want the terrorists to win?
Don’t be mad at reinterpretation. Whenever the SCOTUS rules to clarify a rule or defeat it using a different reading of the Constitution, an understanding of the law is reinterpreted. You’re targeting the wrong thing to be upset at.
State troops weren’t needed or existing back then, but they fit the criteria in which the Constitution defined Militia (which, again, is not what you think it is based on extraneous writings but limited in scope to only what is actually in the Constitutioni). Just as we’ve redefined a person to mean both minorities and women, it doesn’t matter what the Founders thought, it matters what we think now. And in 2015, militia is akin to actual state and federal troops, police, and law enforcement. Your side is not immune to reinterpretation, as you’ve accepted modernity and invention as it applied to guns that the Founders never even dreamed of. The difference between me and you is that I know that the internet is new and we need new laws covering it, but you insist on using a 200+ year old interpretation of self-defense to continue allowing something that’s probably used more for offense than defense. If we can both agree that what the Founders wanted and believed mean nothing now, we can move on, but we can’t if you think the 2nd is immutable
As I keep trying to make you understand, there are other means. A close reading of what you want makes all lawmaking Unconstitutional. We heard the same thing during the gay marriage debate, people said if we wanted gay rights, we can’t use the 14th because they never considered gay rights back then (which is probably true) and that we needed an Amendment to give gays any rights at all. Collectively, the county laughed at those people. We can create laws and rules for gays giving them the right to marriage and apply that to an interpretation of the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with making rules regulating guns then applying that to the 2nd, reasoning that militia will now be defined as a government trained body such as the National Guard, and while we can’t ban guns, we can ban types of guns
You could start with what Hamilton wanted which was to organize a training once or twice a year. But we don’t do that because you think we have an unfettered claim of ownership of guns and short of being in jail or mentally incapable, that cannot be infringed. Again, not like what Hamilton would have wanted. In fact, I doubt he’d even want blacks or women to own guns
No surprise there. Your reasoning is unsound, it was a political ploy designed to appeal to a special interest. I have no problems with how it was done or whether it was legal to do, unlike your objection to various gun laws around the country, but the result is a bare-assed caving to the gun lobby. No industry should have such protection, there are lawyers and judges already capable of making decisions on whether a lawsuit is valid or not. This law prevents judges and lawyers from doing their job.
Excuse me but that is a crazy interpretation of what I said.
Is there a law that allows violent overthrow of the government?
No.
Therefore, violent overthrow of the government is bad and should be put down. Such an overthrow is not democratic, no matter how well its worked for our country in the past. What I am glad for is a standing army of volunteers that has the power to prevent an insurrection where the vast majority of the people do not support. What you are thinking is that any anti-government action is akin to revolutionary era freedom fighters, therefore is inherently legitimate. Tell me that’s not how I should read your response
Should be a national just like drinking age, and should cover not only ownership but purchase and use
You totally dodged the question. You held Hamilton up as some moral arbiter and intellectual giant while his flaws were plain and you ask me to ignore those mistakes he signed into the Constitution while telling me his other ideas are immaculate? Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that. Tell me again why I should care about the words of a racist slaveholder?