I had totally forgotten how the Klan kept the freed slaves down by denying them concealed carry permits and semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips. It’s truly amazing how little the debate has changed in the last 100 years.
One could say that one of the problems with reconstruction is not that black people weren’t allowed guns - it’s that white people were.
Cite? You first.
Could the ineffectiveness of the DC gun laws have anything to do with the comparative ease of acquiring weaponry from neighboring states?
Unless you’ve crossed the Macon County Line, the criminal who’s threatening is not a representative of the government.
I said there were two bases involved: resistance to government tyranny and self-defense against criminals. What you’re describing is self-defense and has nothing to do with resistance.
And what happens in those situations? The Black man or the hotel owner shoots the sheriff or police officer. And then they get arrested themselves by the state police or the FBI.
Guess what. Turns out there hasn’t been a breakdown in government and the higher levels were there working all along.
I don’t know how you could call DC’s gun laws ineffective. They do exactly what they are supposed to do, make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to avail themselves of their Constitutional rights under the guise of public safety.
Perhaps you’re confusing the effectiveness of the law with the frequency with which it is broken. That is, of course, because criminals by definition do not obey laws.
In any event, this thread has pretty much stayed on course. I’d prefer not to derail it with side issues. We’re weighing the merits of the 2nd Amendment, not individual local (!) gun laws.
I personally don’t care what their intent was. They wrote what they wrote. They were a product of their times, this 21st century industrial society is nothing like the US of the 18th century. Give Tom Paine a time machine and have him come here, he might well look at the Zimmerman case and say “are you fucking nuts? We didn’t mean for this to happen!”
QFT, and back to the actual topic we go.
Would you agree that, even if the 2nd amendment isn’t an anachronism, it should at least be rewritten for clarity?
That doesn’t matter. Remember how earlier in the thread you said you can’t have it both ways? Why should we care about what Thomas Jefferson said when we apply current views to the 1st Amendment and the separation of church and state? We could easily turn this country into a theocracy because the Founders had no idea what the future held so we can simply discard their intent.
Ignoring the intent opens up a huge can of worms that I don’t think anybody wants to touch. Unless, of course, it’s something you don’t like or don’t care about, in which case it’s perfectly OK.
Maybe something like “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, I like ponies”?
The Founding Fathers knew this perfectly well, and provided a means to address it when the culture changed enough that the Constitution needed to be changed. They put it in Article V. You could look it up!
Regards,
Shodan
In theory, sure. In practice, not only no but HELL no.
Clarify, please?
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I personally don’t care what their intent was. They wrote what they wrote. They were a product of their times, this 21st century industrial society is nothing like the US of the 18th century.
[/QUOTE]
Probably why they put in mechanisms to change it, ehe? 
For about the 5th time, if the 2nd is now anachronistic and irrelevant then change or strike it down. Of course, I figure why this doesn’t appeal to some folks in this debate and why the anti-gun types haven’t leaped on it is because while it might be anachronistic and irrelevant to THEM, it’s not to a large number of Americans.
Or he might shrug and not bat an eye. Hard to say unless one wants to try and put their own spin on what historical figures might think of things that happen today. You aren’t doing that, are you Bob? :eek: (You’d have been better off using Madison as your example btw)
-XT
ETA: On preview…what Shodan said.
Sure. From my point of view, we have the thoughts of the Founders, Supreme Court decisions, and the weight of history to bring us to today’s climate. If we were to rewrite the Amendment, which way wold it be rewritten? Who would be involved in the writing? How many people would put in their two cents? Laws that are rewritten are usually needlessly complex and vague. There is zero possibility that the law would be rewritten to say “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The 2nd Amendment as it stands now is a paragon of clarity compared to what would happen if it were “clarified”.
I’m content with the way things are now.
Until Heller, these things all supported the collectivist interpretation.
Because it’s so awesome that morons like Zimmerman get to pack heat?
I can see that, and I’ll add in the unholy and unimaginable mess in general a Constitutional Convention would be today.
The thing is, I know America, and I know that no revolution will ever be the People against the Government - It’ll be one half of the People against the Government and the other half of the People. That means that as many privately-held firearms will be used to *suppress *the revolution as will be used to uphold it.
And what are the chances of an uprising ever happening with conditions like those?
I’m not disputing that the Second Amendment does exist. I’m asking if it should exist.
Not much point in arguing that a right should be in the Constitution because it’s a Constitutional right.
I think the reason nobody is trying to eliminate these things is because they don’t exist. You’d look kind of silly calling for a repeal of something that isn’t there.
I think the Second Amendment was intended for resistance to government. But regardless of whether it was that or national defense, the idea of a militia-based defense is outdated and can no longer be a valid basis for law.
I agree that the military might split its loyalties in an actual revolution. But that’s not relevant to the topic of this debate. We’re discussing whether personal gun ownership is a good idea. That means the relevant discussion is whether personal gun ownership would be a significant factor in a revolution (via a citizen militia armed with personal weapons). If the military decides the outcome of the revolution, then personal weapons were not a significant factor.
I disagree with you on the self-defense issue. As I said before, firearms are much more likely to be used to commit a crime than to prevent the commission of a crime. That being the case, I’d argue that firearms are not the best way of defense against crime. Quite the opposite, if you accept the statistics (and real world evidence from other countries) restricting firearms reduces crime.
No they didn’t, not even Miller. Miller was a political decision by the Supreme Court, to say the least. The relevant quotes from the decision:
Really? The military didn’t use short-barreled shotguns? They weren’t “in common use at the time”? That’s news to me.
You can argue that Heller and McDonald were also political decisions, and I’m sure you will. Nevertheless, with millions of firearms commercially available and legal under the guise of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934, not to mention the ownership of firearms prior to that and the words of the Founders supporting firearm ownership, the analog to the 2nd Amendment in virtually every state constitution, and you have a situation where the “militia argument” no longer held even the little bit of water it did when it was decided. The decisions were easy to make and they were a long time coming (the Supreme Court ducked gun decisions for 69 years).
Thank you for your rhetoric. I’ll file it in the appropriate place.