America and the gun

[Shadow Wolf]

We don't have those anymore. If there are there there's the FBI right behind them.

The National Guard is state militia that the President can call to action. As for the 2nd, we can be realistic and realize that back then guns were far different than today. Back then it took awhile to reload. Today we can fire thousands of rounds in the time it took to reload a musket and fire it a second time. There is no arguing the general populace has rights to high rate of fire and high power automatics. And it doesn't say anything about military grade. It says the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. Then the next sentence mentions that states can have a well regulated militia.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I don't say that we need militias. The point is that there is a strong Constitutional basis
for the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing the right to own militarily capable weapons. It is
certainly possible that the future could hold events which make militias useful again.

Well sure anything is possible. It's possible there could be a pill made to where I could grow a couple more inches. Not likely, but possible. If people are going to say they're original intent type with the Constitution doesn't that include not having a military with the army, navy etc? Since the founding fathers were so against it? It makes sense why they were because of what they were leaving, but things change and they knew that which is why there was rules written for changing the Constitution.

 

[Skwim]

I don't say that we need militias. The point is that there is a strong Constitutional basis
for the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing the right to own militarily capable weapons. It is
certainly possible that the future could hold events which make militias useful again.

For just about any prediction there exists a probability. There's a probability that the world will be destroyed next week, an incredibly small probability, but a probability nonetheless. But as common sense people we don't spend time and resources on such probabilities. Nor do we make laws addressing them. Not until they become reasonable do we start thinking about confrontation. Which brings me to the point.
Had there been no reason to think a well regulated militia might be reasonably necessary the second amendment would never have been drawn up. Was it a reasonable probability back then? Evidently so. Is it a reasonable probability today? Not with the military might we now posses. Could it be in the future? Possibly. A possibility IMO on par with the Earth coming to an end next year. If the second amendment had not been drawn up at the end of the 18th century there would be no reason to do so today. The message here is that its reason for being no longer exists, which leaves its solution, giving citizens the right to bear arms, dead in the water.

Because there are no reasonable grounds for having a well regulated militia there is no reasons for assuring citizens of the right to own firearms. In fact, the repeal of the Second Amendment would have absolutely no effect on the security of a free State.

 

[Skwim]

And that would be reasonable grounds for amending the 2nd Amendment.
But until it's repealed or altered by constitutional method, it says what it says, & means what it means.

And it's meaning is no longer valid: a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the the security of a free State. When the problem no longer exists its solution is meaningless. But as you say, it' is still on the books, which for those like yourself, who claim it gives one the right to own guns, I assume you belong to a well regulated militia? Do you? Do you know anyone who does? Do you even know of a well regulated citizen militia?

 

[Thief]

So post #49 needs no response?

 

[Gunfingers]

For the record, we still have a militia.

United States Code: Title 10,311. Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[HonestJoe]

So post #49 needs no response?

Not "needs" no and to be honest I wasn't entirely clear what position you were taking in the debate. I'll give you a response if it'll make you feel better anyway.

I think it's a bad thing to base such wide ranging laws on the basis of a tiny number of extreme incidents. They should be carefully considered on the balance of all the facts, not a knee-jerk reaction to tragic news reports (as has sadly happened here in the UK too).

There is no way to know if, had there been armed civilians at the incidents you describe that the outcome would have been any better or worse.

Switzerland is somewhat unique. The common rifle ownership isn't about personal home defence but as part of their national service. One benefit of this is a level of training in handling the weapons. I think there is also a significance in the fact it is rifles rather than pistols. It also shows that simple gun ownership statistics aren't the be-all and end-all in this debate but that the cultural factors are also significant.

I think invasion of the country is irrelevant since the US has (I believe) the biggest and best equipped military forces in the world. If any invading force gets past that, civilians with light arms aren't going to make all that much different.

 

[Revoltingest]

And it's meaning is no longer valid: a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for the the security of a free State. When the problem no longer exists its solution is meaningless. But as you say, it' is still on the books, which for those like yourself, who claim it gives one the right to own guns, I assume you belong to a well regulated militia? Do you? Do you know anyone who does? Do you even know of a well regulated citizen militia?

You shouldn't assume anything about me. (But you'd be surprised at the company I keep here in Michigan.) We're talking Constitutional law here.
The larger issue is that I don't believe we should allow the gov't to alter the USC by fiat. Aside from not being legal, that grants them too much power
& speed. The formal & slow amendment process is the law of the land...& has the advantage of more input over time, letting cooler heads prevail.

For just about any prediction there exists a probability.....Because there are no reasonable grounds for having a well regulated militia there is no reasons for assuring citizens of the right to own firearms. In fact, the repeal of the Second Amendment would have absolutely no effect on the security of a free State.

You say the probability is zilch. I differ. History shows that tyrants & conquerers have always emerged. Moreover, even in my lifetime we've
seen that civil unrest can go unanswered by gov't (LA riots), & is sometimes even exacerbated by gov't (eg, Katrina). Guns in the hands of
individuals can be the only protection those individuals have (eg, Korean grocers in LA riots). Sure, sure, gov't can be a stabilizing factor,
but sometimes it's paralyzed by fear & politics, & sometimes gov't is the problem (eg, cops arrest innocent citizens to meet arrest quotas).

For some, security is having everyone around them militarily impotent, with a strong central authority watching them, ready to pounce.
I prefer more of a balance of power between the citizenry & gov't. You're welcome to have a different preference.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Really? I don't think so. I travel as little as possible & do a lot of biking & walking. But when I do drive, I pull a 15,000# trailer,
which makes a little car impossible. I bought my truck in 1998 & have only a hair over 80,000 miles now.

Environmental responsibility strikes me as unrelated to feminism....tis for everyone, regardless of ideology.

Of course....I'm a member. Everyone bullies Congress, eg, NAACP, AARP, ACLU, etc, etc. That's our system.
Some get their way more than others, some I agree with, & some I don't.

I'm not a hunter....strictly target (single shot) & self defense (semi-auto).
For dangerous game though, a single shot is stupid. Such hunters often use doubles or reliable controlled-feed bolt guns.

So do semi-automatics sound reasonable as an upper legal limit?

You shouldn't assume anything about me. (But you'd be surprised at the company I keep here in Michigan.) We're talking Constitutional law here.

Ah, you're from Michigan.

 

[Revoltingest]

So do semi-automatics sound reasonable as an upper legal limit?

Sure. But as things stand, we can legally possess fully auto weapons too (with
the proper license). "Reasonable" covers a very broad & contentious area, one
which I'm loathe to define with any precision.

Ah, you're from Michigan.

In the People's Republic of Ann Arbor, I rub shoulders with gun grabbers & militia types.

 

[Skwim]

For the record, we still have a militia.

Yes, those who are members of the National Guard. And their weapons are not their own and are secured in the a U. S. armory.

You say the probability is zilch. I differ.

Regarding the present I said there is no reasonable probability. As for the future I said the possibility was, IMO, on par with the Earth coming to an end next year.

Guns in the hands of individuals can be the only protection those individuals have (eg, Korean grocers in LA riots). Sure, sure, gov't can be a stabilizing factor, but sometimes it's paralyzed by fear & politics, & sometimes gov't is the problem (eg, cops arrest innocent citizens to meet arrest quotas).

Interesting point; however, their gun ownership did not meet the criteria as laid out in the amendment; one exemplified by our National Guard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, those who are members of the National Guard. And their weapons are not their own and are secured in the a U. S. armory.

That really doesn't relate to the 2nd Amendment, which is about the rights of citizens to bear arms, not the government.

Regarding the present I said there is no reasonable probability. As for the future I said the possibility was, IMO, on par with the Earth coming to an end next year.

Your probability calculation is off. Looking at history:
# of times the Earth came to an end: Zero
# of times citizens needed arms: Plenty
Plenty > Zero

Interesting point; however, their gun ownership did not meet the criteria as laid out in the amendment; one exemplified by our National Guard.

I'd say they did meet the criterion, ie, that our gov't may not infringe upon that right.
(IMO, the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment is not a dependent clause, but rather a reason. Even if the reason were eliminated, the 1st half remains.)

 

[Gunfingers]

Yes, those who are members of the National Guard. And their weapons are not their own and are secured in the a U. S. armory.

Read it again

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...under 45 years of age

I'm in the militia, you're in the militia, your dad, uncles, brothers, and male cousins are all in the unorganized militia assuming that they're citizens within the correct age range.

 

[Revoltingest]

Read it again
I'm in the militia, you're in the militia, your dad, uncles, brothers, and male cousins are all in the unorganized militia assuming that they're citizens within the correct age range.

I only attended one meeting though. (They seemed a nice bunch, but too Boy Scouty for me.)

 

[Skwim]

Read it again

Not without good reason. Got any? If it's because of

"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
​

I can only say, so what? The Second Amendment doesn't address unorganized militias, but well regulated ones. Simply recognizing the forms (classes) of militias does not imbue their existence with any legal standing.

If it's because of

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...under 45 years of age

I'm in the militia, you're in the militia, your dad, uncles, brothers, and male cousins are all in the unorganized militia assuming that they're citizens within the correct age range.

Sorry to say, my dad is over 45, and I don't belong to the National guard. So I suggest you reread it yourself, all the way through to where it says "who are members of the National Guard."

That really doesn't relate to the 2nd Amendment, which is about the rights of citizens to bear arms, not the government.

Of course it doesn't. My remark was only in reply to the use of "militia" as illustrated in Gunfinger's link.

Your probability calculation is off. Looking at history:
# of times the Earth came to an end: Zero
# of times citizens needed arms: Plenty
Plenty > Zero

Good one. But the fact remains that because of the change in our society, one whose security is well provided for by our armed forces, the "plenty" is no longer relevant. The past is not necessarily binding on or even relevant to the present or the future.

I'd say they did meet the criterion, ie, that our gov't may not infringe upon that right.

Think they were "well regulated" I rather doubt it. They may have been organized, even well organized, but I never saw any evidence of regulation, much less "well regulated."

(IMO, the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment is not a dependent clause, but rather a reason. Even if the reason were eliminated, the 1st half remains.)

I think it does. The first clause establishes reason for the second. Without it the second clause has no reason for existence. It IS dependent on the first. It's no different than saying, "In order to move about, the right of the people to own a horse shall not be infringed. A lot of people own a horse, but because moving about is no longer dependent on having a horse there is no reason for such guarantee.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the fact remains that because of the change in our society, one whose security is well provided for by our armed forces, the "plenty" is no longer relevant. The past is not necessarily binding on or even relevant to the present or the future.

Past is prologue IMO.
And I don't trust our gov't to the same extent as perhaps you do, no matter which party is in charge.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/public-privacy/#ixzz10GwocAiu

Think they were "well regulated" I rather doubt it. They may have been organized, even well organized, but I never saw any evidence of regulation, much less "well regulated."

There could be room for improvement. Certainly one doesn't lose one's constitutional liberties just cuz of that.

The first clause establishes reason for the second. Without it the second clause has no reason for existence. It IS dependent on the first...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yeah, I dyslexified the 2 parts. But I view the 2nd half as legally independent from the first. As you say, the 1st is a reason for the 2nd. But the language of dependency is not there.
They could've said:
"As long as a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."....or
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed only if a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State."
But they chose not to phrase it this way. I see this as intentional.

I don't think it wise to grant the gov't the ability to cut back on civil liberties easily. If you & they don't like the 2nd Amendment,
then the process to amend it is detailed in the Constitution. That's the proper way to do it. Why not try the legal way?

 

[Gunfingers]

Not without good reason. Got any? If it's because of

"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
​

I can only say, so what? The Second Amendment doesn't address unorganized militias, but well regulated ones. Simply recognizing the forms (classes) of militias does not imbue their existence with any legal standing.

Regulated by, say, U.S.C. Title 10, the one that covers all the armed forces? Granted, we could go back and forth all day about how "well" regulated that Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311 is but the fact remains that the unorganized (unorganized, not unregulated) militia is there.

The real question is why we're wasting money on the world's most expensive military when we have something like 100 million soldiers sitting in their homes. :-/

 

[Revoltingest]

The real question is why we're wasting money on the world's most expensive military when we have something like 100 million soldiers sitting in their homes. :-/

Tis cuz we militia types won't go on missions of foreign adventurism, conquest or nation building.
We're strictly self-defense types....most of us, anyway.

 

[Gunfingers]

Tis cuz we militia types won't go on missions of foreign adventurism, conquest or nation building.
We're strictly self-defense types....most of us, anyway.

I don't see how that does anything but reinforce my point.

 

[Skwim]

There could be room for improvement. Certainly one doesn't lose one's constitutional liberties just cuz of that.

It's just that the "that" here did not fall under the provision of the 2nd, being "well regulated." You want to retain a Constitutional liberty? Then you have to abide by the requirements it sets forth.

Yeah, I dyslexified the 2 parts. But I view the 2nd half as legally independent from the first. As you say, the 1st is a reason for the 2nd. But the language of dependency is not there.

Okay, to make it clearer, although a bit wordier, here is how it would read with the unexpressed inference included.

A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

​

As in logic a "therefore" statement is a dependent one. It depends on a premise for its truth, validity, and raison d'être; and the premise here is "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State."

I don't think it wise to grant the gov't the ability to cut back on civil liberties easily.

And I don't think any such granting has ever been given, except perhaps in time of war or national emergency.

If you & they don't like the 2nd Amendment,
then the process to amend it is detailed in the USSC. That's the proper way to do it. Why not try the legal way?

But I'm fine with the amendment, but not with the way some choose to read it. That it's antiquated and remains on the books is a curiosity, but no more than that. Let it remain, don't let it remain, I don't care, just don't try to pervert it.