Except we have the early drafts of the 2nd, we have Madison’s writings as well as the Federalist papers and the writings of other key figures in it’s draft. All of that runs contrary to your interpretation/narrative that it was originally meant to be about a ‘well-regulated militia…necessary to the security of a free state’ and that the personal right of citizens to keep and bear arms was sort of tacked on much later down the road. The ‘right to bear arms’ as in an individual right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, including guns, isn’t something that evolved over time but was with us from the start. This isn’t the ‘dumb guy’ version, it’s reality, and folks like you attempt to push your revisionist version of history as if it were fact. It’s kind of ironic that you’d claim that it’s the other side who is revisionist when we have all the evidence that it’s really your side who has done this.
Why aren’t “arms” interpreted as … arms? The state should not have the right to cut off my arms, either the right or the left one.
Blame the environmentalists…and PETA.
So Thomas is a supporter of second amendment rights. If he thinks the case will lose then why is he in such a hurry to get the case tried?
Yes its all speculation but the gun rights side seems to be taking significant meaning from it.
This was kind of a big deal when it came out. I tink it was the first restraint on the commerce clause since I knew there was such a thing.
I have a very strong suspicion that Madison’s “and other key figures” interpretation of “arms” consisted of things like muzzle loaders and not automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
So, what are you saying? Madison wasn’t a time traveling alien from the future who knew what the future technology would be?? :eek:
Considering that those things didn’t exist in his time, nor were they even something seriously considered, it’s probably a good bet that his interpretation of ‘arms’ was based on what he knew to be real, not some future fantasy. And this means absolutely nothing wrt the right to keep and bear ‘arms’ or why he felt it was important.
(Also, as an aside, automatic weapons are highly controlled and regulated in the US, so not sure why you tossed that in)
The thing is, as has been mentioned, that was then and this is now. If things have changed we have the mechanisms to remove or amend the Amendment. What’s annoying is folks who try and use revisionist history to justify a fiat change based on their interpretation and some glossing over actual history, the writings and notes and correspondence of the folks who wrote the thing, etc etc. That’s the only reason why this keeps coming up, and why anti-gun types point to the militia clause as if that’s the end of the argument and that ‘well-regulated’ means what they think it means. A good faith debate on this from someone in favor of more strict gun regulation would concede this issue, after actually bothering to look into it more than their own reading of the Amendment, and then talk about how it IS a living document, and is SUPPOSED to change with the times, and that if it’s become something that is no longer relevant to the US society TODAY, then we have the means to change it, and the FF’s would be the first to point out that this was why they created the mechanisms to change our system over time, if that’s the will of the people…it’s not supposed to be set in concrete, nor are we supposed to go strictly by the thoughts, feelings, writings and ideas of the authors or founders. After all, most of them thought slavery was a good idea.
And his idea of “Free Press” consisted of old hand worked Printing presses, not the internet or email or ebooks or radios or… So?
I proposed something in another thread. Of course it has ZERO chance of becoming law, but I think it at least covers many points raised by both sides. Essentially allow (or even provide) each adult who wants one, one gun of their choice. We can debate if we wish to stick with handguns, semi-auto, or allow grenade launchers. Provide enough ammo to fully load and reload (max mags might need to be debated. Hell, I’ll go with 30.) Allow concealed carry of that weapon to anyone who asks and completes whatever training/requirements are required. Each individual’s estate must account for/turn in each individual’s gun at death.
So anyone who wants a gun of their preference for personal protection in their home or when out and about has one.
BUT - any guns and ammo beyond those described above, will be taxed hugely. The tax will go to education and to defray the costs of gun violence. For folk who favor restriction, it might have the effect of reducing the number of new guns entering society.
There could be exceptions to the tax for guns and ammo used and stored at registered ranges/hunt clubs, etc. So anyone who wants any number of weapons can have them - but there would be reasonable (yes, folk will differ) time, place, and manner restrictions.
Any gun will be owned solely for the life of the owner. They cannot be handed down when the owner dies. I’m not sure the right to bear necessarily includes a right to devise…
Add in a lucrative program of gun buybacks.
I’m not saying everyone would favor this. Hell, I suppose both pro/anti folk will have something to dislike. And I’m sure there would need to be myriad details worked out. But what about that would be clearly unconstitutional? What is are the persuasive arguments against this?
So hunters, gun collectors and police officers are all fucked?
The police should be allowed a couple guns a year to plant on dead suspects. 
Well, hunters would be an area that might need to be addressed. You’ll have to define “fucked”, but their hobby might just be somewhat more expensive. Or something else could be worked out regarding subsidized ammo, registration of weapons, or other things.
I don’t know why the right to bear arms necessarily means an unrestricted right to collect. And I would be amenable to proposals to allow collections - possible if registered and open to periodic inspection.
Of course, your suggestion that police would be included makes clear you have no intention of discussing this reasonably.
Not all hunters do it as a “hobby”.
Ok.
But Police officers often have to but their own weapons, and many cops have 2 or 3. Duty, off duty, back-up, and undercover.
And how about things like a .22 rifle for target practice?
So the fact that you are asking about specific details means you support the underlying approach? If not, why waste time quibbling?
The* idea* is not ludicrous, but the devil is in the details. I think it has too many practical limitations, but it’s good out of the box thinking.
So they won’t be allowed to plant guns on living suspects anymore?
Why bother? Just kill them, plant the evidence, and nobody’s left to complain.
This is similar to another proposal by someone on this board that all guns revert back to the state at death. I never understood how this prevented gun violence to any significant degree. And I don’t think that anyone thinks that a gun should be provided to everyone free of charge any more than a printing press should be provided to everyone. Lawyers in criminal cases are the only right that the government pays for, that and arguably the right to vote.
There may be some constitutional issues with the definition of the word keep. Does that mean own or just possess?
What do you do about guns that are lost or stolen?
What do you do about the guns that are already out there if people do not want to participate in the buyback? Confiscate them? And no one gun is going to satisfy all your needs. A handgun is very important because of it is small and concealable but during the LA riots it was the silhouette of men on rooftops with long guns that helped maintain the peace.
Practical concerns:
Sometimes firearms are an heirloom. My friend has a sword that was surrendered to his grandfather by a Japanese admiral at the end of WWII. He would be pretty upset if the government confiscated the sword when his father dies. Similarly there are firearms with similar sentimental value.
How about hunters? How about people who load their own ammunition (which a lot of hunters do?
How about people who have shooting ranges in their back yards?
Over a great number of years, it might reduce the overall number of guns out there, which might increase the cost to people wishing to get them illegally.
Okay, instead of free of charge, 1 gun is not subject to tax. I offer this to avoid people saying poor people won’t be able to protect themselves at home or out and about.
Yeah, good question. And I’m willing to entertain suggestions/arguments. I’m not sure that is an insurmountable hurdle. Actually, I can imagine it being more of a problem seen as taking of property without appropriate process…
Since we’re just making things up, we do whatever we want. If you are careless enough to lose a gun, I’m not overly concerned with your ability to get another. But the law could give opportunity to buy another cheap gun with appropriate documentation of how gun was stolen/lost, or maybe you have to pay full fare including tax for the next one.
I’m not suggesting something that will do everything for gun control or gun rights folk. I’m not pretending that I will get all guns out of circulation. But some measures - such as voluntary buyback and reversion to the state upon death - might meaningfully reduce the stockpile over decades.
And too bad, you have to choose for your one gun that is free from tax. So pick a handgun or long gun. I’m willing to say that in the event of riots, I’d like the people packing on rooftops to be LEOs and national guard, rather than private citizens. And if you want a handgun AND a rifle - have at it. But the second one is going to bear a hefty tax. Hell, have 20 handguns and 50 rifles - but pay the tariff.
Oh yeah - I guess it should go without saying, but my proposal would need some prohibition against private gun sales. Too bad. I’m not sure right to keep and bear means right to sell - but again, that would likely be viewed as a taking.
Any number of opportunities could be provided for people to register as dealers - which will be heavily regulated. And someone asked about a 22 for target shooting - there could any number of provisions for people to transport their registered weapons from one permitted location to another.
I’m ambivalent about that. There would need to be some restriction, or everyone would claim every weapon an heirloom. My personal thought would be edged blades are OK, firearms have to be made unfireable.
Nothing in my proposal prohibits anyone from owning as many guns or ammo as they can afford, or using them in approved manners. If it is legal to shoot in your backyard, keep shooting. If you want tax free ammo, you need to register your range, and agree to inspections and additional regulations.
Hunters can hunt as they currently do. Just gonna have to pay more for your ammo. I’d even agree to some tax relief associated with buying game-specific tags/licenses. Involve hunting and game control groups to provide input as to what is a reasonable number of rounds for a day of specific type hunting. That can be handled administratively.
For load your owns - tax the components. Or don’t. I’m no expert, but I’d imagine self-loaders are a pretty small proportion, and are limited in output.
OK, then, repeal it. I tried to interpret it charitably, but if that’s the intent, it’s a stupid and dangerous law, and it must be repealed. Period. And, yes, all autonomous private gun ownership outlawed with it.
Because whether you have a well-regulated militia or not, if you have a free trade in rifles and handguns going to independent actors alongside it, you end up with what we have today: [ol]
[li]Umpty-seventeen would-be rebel armies and terrorist wannabes running around with “constitutionally protected” weapons stockpiles.[/li][li]The three-way arms race between police, career criminals, and the general run of law-abiding citizen.[/li][li]The other arms race between, well, races.[/li][/ol]