You will get a counter-argument that 2A begins “A militia …”, which is a totally and completely different thing from “The militia”. Somehow.
That’s not the clause they’ve used to justify it in the past. For example, go see how many times “commerce” shows up in 18 USC § 922
After we agree not to do so due to International law, in 1907. Altho we earlier agreed in 1856 but didnt sign, due to other issues.
The National Guard has been Federalized and even sent overseas. It is not in any way a "Militia’ anymore. Some states do maintain a militia, however.
Automatic weapons are pretty much illegal or tightly regulated. Few are owned privately.
Semi-automatic shotguns and deer rifles are quite common and used totally legally and in a sportsmanlike manner.
https://www.chuckhawks.com/great_centerfire_hunting_rifles.htm
https://www.gameandfishmag.com/editorial/hunting_guns-shooting_bolt_action_or_semi-auto_big_game_hunting_rifles_1010/244962
You know, the gun grabbers would do well to educate themselves so they arent always posting stuff out of ignorance like this.
So how will a militia overthrow a tyrannical government, which IS armed with fully automatic weapons?
No, that decision doesnt say that at all. It says that local and state governments may ban "* assault weapons
and large capacity magazines with the ability “to
accept more than 10 rounds.”*
So, yeah, you can ban some semi automatic rifles if they have a 10+ round magazine which most semi automatic deer rifles do not.
In no way did SCOTUS rule that *“No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle.”. *
In most areas they are still quite legal to own.
Do note that in that decision there is this "*In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), this Court established that the Second
Amendment provides an individual right to possess
firearms, and specifically the right to possess a
handgun for self-defense in the home. "
So, as I have said repeatedly, such reasonable limitations on the 2nd Ad are quite legal.
Altho of course such a ban is pointless and stupid since such weapons are almost never used in crimes. But still- legal.
The national Gd is no longer in any way shape or form a Militia.
and calling the “unorganized militia” = “Imaginary” is like calling the Moon Walk a hoax. The Unorganized a militia is part of US Federal Law, liek it or now. Putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes wont make it not there.
Because the “no standing army” faction wanted a mention of a militia. The first wording didnt mention a militia at all. The militia part was put in to make the “no standing army” faction happy instead of them adding a additional amendment.
We have been over this several times.
Yes. That is the Media, telling you it’s guns, rather than-* the media*, as noted sociologist have proven in peer reviewed journals.
Violent crime have been decreasing- despite even more guns- while mass shootings are on the increase. The reason for that increase is the Media glorifying the killers. **It’s a fact, proven in studies. **
It’s also a fact that the media doesnt want you to know that. They’d rather blame guns.
But there were still hundreds of millions of guns decades ago, before the mass shootings were a common occurrence. However the mass media glorifying the shooters in a 24 hour news cycle is new- and the cause of the increase.
No, they also recognized that people had a right to be secure in their homes and defend them.
And studying a criminology or sociology issue with epidemiology is like studying the moon with a microscope- the wrong tool from the wrong science. Thus studies have been widely disproven and shown to be biased and bogus.
Do you ever read past the first paragraph? You should, because it says:
IOW, “You were told NO, now quit your whining”.
Additionally, it’s become clear to me that engaging with you in these discussions really is, “pointless and stupid”.
Pretty much none. They could ban the interstate movement of guns. They already ban the interstate sale of guns, unless you are a dealer.
So in order to ban guns, you’d have to get all fifty states to agree. I mean, that’s what the gun grabbers have said themselves, when it’s been pointed out that some areas did ban handguns, and it did nothing to affect violent crime. Or that CA has banned “assault weapons” for quite some time now, with no effect. The gun grabbers say that those local bans are useless, as the guns move across state lines. That does have some truth to it.
So then wait a minute, not only are we gonna have to get all fifty states to ban guns, but then there’s still 3-400 millions guns out there, so of course the killings will continue. Then the gun grabbers will say that “of course they continue. we need to not only ban guns nationwide, but confiscate all other existing guns”. In other words, house to house searches and confiscation.
And since banning "assault weapons " is Constitutional, what do they want to ban? Well, of course all semi-autos. Then since a bolt of lever action can be fired almost as fast, ban them too- and since handguns are the biggest use in crimes, ban them also…
ah that slope is very slippery indeed…
Your interpretation of the Constitution is interesting. Perhaps you can petition your Representative in Congress for permission to travel on a Post Road to the place of government so you can address your concerns. And while you’re there, would you also ask why Congress is not regulating Commerce with foreign Nations.
If a federal gun ban were constitutional, it would apply everywhere in the U.S. Supremacy clause.
BTW, I have no brief for any particular gun-control regime. I just don’t believe gun rights are important enough to be placed above and beyond ordinary legislative politics by constitutional protection. If the 2d Am were repealed, that doesn’t mean the end of private gun ownership, it just means the fight over gun control shifts from the courts to the elections and legislatures – where gun-rights activists still have a good chance of winning.
The NRA does not, as is sometimes said, have power in DC because of its campaign contributions, which don’t really amount to all that much. It has power because every Congresscritter knows the NRA can mobilize millions of single-issue voters. Repealing the 2d won’t change that.
I dont see how in any way that paragraph invalidates what I was saying. Heller said reasonable limitations are Ok, and that seems to be a reasonable limitation.
You do know that " assault weapons
and large capacity magazines " is not the same at all as “semi-automatic rifle”. Altho true, assault weapons are all semi-automatics, there are many, many guns which are semi-automatics that are not assault weapons and do not have a large capacity magazine. So you saying that that case somehow made your statement of “No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle.” correct is false. (Not to mention you obviously didnt know that civilians havent really been able to own automatic weapons for some tome now).
It’s like the government banning street racing cars and you saying that means they banned all cars with 8 cylinder engines. Or that they banned heroin and that means they banned aspirin also. Both are painkillers, right?
Please educate yourself.
It could, depending on how it was worded.
It would take probably another Constitutional ad, like this one “After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”
Cliven Bundy and his gang of criminals stole land from the U.S. taxpayer and held off the Feds with guns. Koresh and his criminals defended their freedom to follow a religion that emphasized rapes and polygamy using guns at Waco, Texas. Are these the examples that defenders of the view quoted above would point to?
Nitpick: The version with two commas (or, worse, three!) is simply ungrammatical. Shouldn’t all sentences in legal documents that cannot be parsed, that are pure covfefe like junk DNA, be ignored?
But to defend the Infallible Founding Fathers™®, As seen at this image of the handwritten Bill of Rights, the first comma (which renders the entire Amendment gibberish) looks like just a smudge. (Thanks to eschereal for the link, which worked great in 2015 but now, even with help from the Wayback Machine, requires extra clicks.)
Ultimately it’s none of anyone else’s business what rifle I choose to buy, as long as it’s legal. And who are YOU to tell me otherwise?
That’s the thing here- you’re proposing curtailing the rights of millions of people because a literal handful of people can’t behave. It’s the same old elementary school bullshit writ large, where that one dipshit kid can’t behave, so the whole class loses the ability to do something. It pissed me off then, and it pisses me off now.
It’s about like saying that because 15 or 20 dumbass teenagers driving sports cars cause fatal wrecks and kill 500 people nationwide, that nobody nationwide should be able to drive sports cars, regardless of driving record, where they live, age, etc…
That’s my main objection with this- it’s a bunch of people presuming to tell another group of law-abiding citizens what they can or can’t do, because of what some OTHER people are doing.
Beyond that, there’s something else at work that’s making the mass shooting an attractive way for people to act out- what is that something else? I’m not at all convinced that merely removing guns from the equation is going to prevent that- they’ll just find another way to do something similar- homemade bombs, driving through crowds, hijacking airliners, etc… just to name a few things that have already been done in recent history.
THAT is what needs to be identified and remedied. Anything else is at best treating a symptom.
Re: Well-regulated.
I generally tend to be skeptical of arguments from dictionary definitions, but I’m especially skeptical of arguments from incomplete dictionary definitions. That admittedly pro-gun site did some not admitted cherry-picking.
The OED itself defines well-regulated this way:
and the citations, if you read all of them, provide a much wider range of meanings than that source acknowledges.