Arms protected by the Second Amendment are those in a well-regulated militia. Arms held outside lawfully constituted authority are in infringement of the militia’s right to keep arms.
Words mean things.
At present, most state governments have allowed private individuals to keep arms for personal use. The private gun owner is not in infringement because he has been granted a license by the state. This is not constitutionally mandated, and may be bad policy in practice.
I think it’s wiser to adopt an actual “regulated militia” model. I don’t mean the National Guard, nor do I mean the old slave patrols that operated under that name.
I mean, do it like the Swiss. You want guns? Great. You’re going to be conscripted, everybody, when you turn eighteen, and indoctrinated, and issued a firearm. That weapon is not yours. You will keep and bear it on condition of regular drilling and good behavior. And it can be taken away from you forever if you screw up.
As for the present SCotUSA, I deny their major premise. The constitution obviously does not grant a personal right to “arms” in any category, and it’s nonsensical to try to find one. It does not say what they pretend it says.
You’re both wrong. It was written to protect the ability of local authorities to raise posse to run down criminals and runaway slaves. There’s an actual history here.
Well presumably she is still able to take a self defense course. In fact, she probably should have done that to begin with. Although maybe she has and did.
That said, it doesn’t matter what I think. It doesn’t matter what someone in 1787 thought they were writing. The actual common-law constitution is whatever hogwash nine mediocre lawyers think up.
And Alito is quite right that it’s silly to tell someone that she can’t buy a stungun and that she should have instead bought a handgun.
Based on historical practices, ANY weapon that can be reasonably operated and maintained by a single person – including but not limited to machine guns, flamethrowers, and grenades – is therefore included under the Second Amendment. Indeed, a strong argument could be made in this day and age that every able-bodied male of good character 18-45 years old should be required to own at least one of those weapons.
It’s a common misconception among firearm enthusiasts that their hobby provides a superior method of self-defense. We’re here to fight ignorance.
The best way to learn about defending yourself is to -wait for it- take a class in self defense. Model mugging frameworks are particularly helpful. Sure, you can read NRA propaganda instead, but that’s like taking health classes from the tobacco lobby.
I say stick with the professionals. I go to an auto mechanic when I want my car repaired. I see a physician when I’m sick. My dentist evaluates my teeth: I don’t ask him repair my air conditioner.
Again - a total non sequitur. No one was discussing the relative value of different self defense methods. But now that you’ve brought it up, the idea that some other hand to hand or other method is as effective for self defense or more so than a firearm is laughable. I laugh. Ignorance, indeed. When the police think they are better served defending themselves without firearms in this country then the idea may be worth considering. Until then it’s an unfunny joke.
Yes - a literal reading of the words as they were written is that there is no infringement on the right to carry a flintlock musket as long as you’re wearing a tricorn hat.
Only five, one of whom is gone and about to be replaced.
Nothing else in the Constitution is consistent with that view. The several mentions of *suppressing *rebellion are contrary to it. The Red Dawn view is entirely fanciful.
No longer applicable. If you think rifle-toting citizens would have a chance against the black helicopters, you’re delusional. The anti-tyranny argument might have made sense 200 years ago when the government and the citizenry were on more equal terms of firepower, but the balance is so far tipped in the government’s favor that thought of an armed uprising will never be more than a right-wing fantasy.
This, too? Come now, you don’t think the drafters and signers of the Constitution, considering the term “a free State,” had in mind freedom from monarchs?
It’s a literal reading of the words as they were defined at the time, isn’t it? It’s a joke only to the extent that torturing and redefining, and often even ignoring, half of the amendment itself is a joke.
The free state was, of course, the US government as defined in the Constitution, which explicitly provides for means to defend *it *from rebellion. The framers did provide a means to “overthrow” it, by laying out the mechanism for a new constitutional convention. The right of rebellion that so many claim was in there has zero support, and would be pretty damn silly if it were - speaking of jokes.
I am a professional, or at least I was for some years, and as a professional teacher of self-defense, I will correct this. A weapon is better than self-defense training in most situations, especially for women.
Firearms are a superior method of self-defense to any form of hand-to-hand combat training.
There - now stick to what the professionals say, and you won’t go far wrong.