It nearly became possible when the “collective” interpretation of the Second Amendment was ascendant- that the 2nd meant nothing but that you had the right to join the National Guard; posters here echoed that view. And who knows if a new Supreme Court justice will give us a 5-4 decision neutering Heller and McDonald.
No handguns, no semi-automatics, nothing that holds more than seven rounds, having to join a government-sanctioned gun club to own a gun at all, permits and licences issued at government officials’ discretion, no keeping guns in your home let alone carry, tracking of all ammo purchases… is that what you have in mind for a “middle”? That might not technically be “banning” guns, but it would be such an evisceration of any notion that people have a right to own weapons that it would hardly matter
That sounds like an exaggeration. Has there ever been a time when Americans have been in danger of not being able to own guns?
Thanks for pointing that out. In the heated frenzy of gun debates, we’ve forgotten that gun rights are so tenuous that one single justice can send the law in the other direction. There’s hope for America yet.
If the text of the Second Amendment is so vague that it’s open to such polarized interpretations, its sanctity as a defence for gun rights, or gun control if it comes to that, is worthless. I propose that henceforth, invoking the Second Amendment or the Constitution in any discussion on guns is hereby inadmissable. Do I hear an amen?
There was a time (mid-1970s to mid-1990s) when Americans were in danger of having no constitutional protection of gun ownership. When it would be considered merely another thing falling under the general police power of the state, to be allowed or banned by legislation- and governments being what they are, most probably eventually banned or severely restricted. Look at D.C.'s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 that Heller overturned.
Quite aside from the gun issue, something is seriously wrong when whether something is considered a protected fundamental right or not depends on the personal vagaries of a single person and their swing vote.
For all its imperfections, the 2nd is the best protection gun owners have. Citizen-owned guns are the ultimate expression of decentralized power; almost inherently governments will never be in favor of allowing gun ownership and always in favor of more restrictions- it’s a one-way ratchet. Quite possibly we wouldn’t even have the Second Amendment if the states hadn’t been so afraid of federal power. Only constitutional-level protection (state and federal) along with a well-organized, militant, and persevering grass roots movement has forced politicians to respect gun rights.
You say “police power of the state” like you’re living in the USSR. If the American government enacts any draconian measures, voters can reject them in the next election. Democracy is what prevents federal abuse, not armed civilians. You don’t see other Western democracies turning into police states because their people aren’t allowed to carry guns in public.
Whatever filter you’re looking through, the U.S. is not a police state and is in no danger of becoming one as long as it maintains its democratic ideals. That means letting the people choose between gun control and gun rights, not preventing them from choosing, as an iron-clad Second Amendment would do.
Instead of being wrong with respect to guns, maybe it reveals something about the worth of guns as a fundamental right. The Second Amendment made sense when an armed insurrection against an oppressive government was musket vs. musket. Now, the concept of civilian militias and private ownership of guns as a decentralizing check against evil feds is completely irrelevant in the age of modern warfare. If it had any real worth today, I doubt that the Heller ruling would be in danger of being reversed.
As I said above, citizen-owned guns as the ultimate expression of decentralized power is both archaic and useless today. The Founding Fathers had good reason to mistrust federal power in 1787 when the only governmental model they had for guidance was plutocratic monarchy. Now, 200-plus years later, the American experiment has a long and proven track record of preventing totalitarian regimes. If there was an inherent tendency for the U.S. government to descend into dictatorship, it would have done so long ago. Instead, the experiment was a success; the democratic formula works.
It took a strong federal government for the United States to accomplish what it has and to make it the preeminent power in the world. In the year 2016, you should be thankful for federal power, not afraid of it.
That one is fine. Having fired those - they are not for amateurs, are very expensive, EXTREMELY heavy, a single round is $3-5 each. They are far from being a threat, and really only a rifle for serious target shooters and collectors.
(note - I own an Armalite AR-50 - love it, but damn if going out to shoot it is a pain the ass).
I’ve toyed with the idea of buying a .50, but neither my gun club nor any within a reasonable drive has a range long enough to make owning one worthwhile. Shooting a .50 at 500 yards is like owning a sports car and never taking it out of first gear.
I meant it in the technical sense of “the government can enact almost anything that isn’t constitutionally forbidden”. See Wikipedia’s article Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law for more details. That’s where most of the legal controversy over guns arises: are guns just another thing that the government could ban by a legislative act, or is possession of weapons as fundamental as free speech? Imagine an America with no First Amendment, where the government could do anything provided it was duly enacted by a democratically elected legislature. I believe that some things are too precious to trust to a temporary majority vote, and I think guns should be included in that list.
(BTW, the closing parenthesis was missing in your link so it didn’t work. Here’s the correct link.)
Sure, a reckless government can enact whatever it wants, but it takes popular consent for a law to be accepted. Otherwise, the government will be out on its ass in the next election. If that wasn’t the case, we’d already be living under oppression. I don’t see anything to fear from “police power of the state”, as ominous as it sounds. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re really afraid that the people will consent to stricter gun controls, so having guns protected by the Constitution will prevent their consent.
Comparing guns to free speech is just too specious. No one will disagree that free speech is necessary for a free society, but guns demonstrably aren’t. Plenty of people, maybe even a majority, will contest you on that.
Okay, but you don’t say why guns are so precious that they need Constitutional protection. How will more gun control keep the U.S. from being a free society, any more than speed limits?
Yes. It is a chickenshit excuse for wanting guns everywhere.
Instead, we have a plutocratic republic, which is facilitated by having lots of guns everywhere. Gun culture and its attendant paranoia help keep the average citizen focused on the potential hazard of that guy right over there, not the sociopaths who are doing their best to screw over as many citizens as possible.
In the US itself, maybe. Pahlavi, Batista, Pinochet, Somoza (of whom FDR allegedly said “He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch”), totalitarian regimes in other countries are OK, as long as we do not seem to have one?
I beg to differ. Gun control got its first big expansion in the latter 19th century, when the plutocrats were taking control. With socialist radicals, immigrants, striking workers and poor people contesting the new power system, suddenly allowing the populace to own and carry guns didn’t seem like such a good idea. First the states decided to only allow a select militia of reliable (i.e., willing to gun rioters down) guardsmen, and then later the cities banned the carry of firearms by anyone but police, so that they could- well, police the population and keep the riff-raff in line. A similar situation happened in the 1960s, when the Black Panthers and other radical groups began arming themselves, prompting a second wave of gun control laws backed by conservative “law and order” advocates.
The author of this essay, a hardcore leftist, describes our current system as “a preemptive counter-revolution”, which gun control is an essential feature of. And reminds us that the rich and well-connected will always have their armed bodyguards.
Yeah, “hard-core”. That particular faction is angry and frustrated, whether it be on one “side” or the “other”. The attitude that citizens with guns can topple an “out-of-control government” and replace it with something better is proven fallacy, because the “revolutionaries” have always been sociopaths of the same order as the PTB. Pete Townsend was spot on, “Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss”.
What was Nick Romanov’s attitude toward gun rights? What did that get him? What about Fulgencio Batista? Louis XVI?
Because, you realize what rising up against the government makes you, no matter how just and reasonable your cause, right? It makes you a criminal. And, no matter how many high-contrast heroic image T-shirts of your face they run off, you are still a criminal and a sociopath, whose bold actions have left the nation no better off than it was – the misery and oppression is merely shifted from one group to another.
I wanted to put this in “The Happy-Happy I’m So Happy God Invented Guns” thread — after all, honkers can be annoying — but didn’t dare: they keep tattling me out to the Mods over there. I suppose I’d have to research the skin colors of victim and perp before I could be sure it meets their standard for a good shoot.
I never vote and the primary reason is that the NRA changed the rules after the Cincinnatti revolution the NRA nominating committee controls the list of potential candidates like the Supreme council in Iran. Sure there is technically a way to overrule them but with voter participation in the single digits, its really hard to do.
