Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[metis]

Yes. And they thought people should be trained, not just be given a gun for their own personal use to do with as they please. They expected people would be trained to use their firearms and would aid in the defense of their local militia.

They wrote quite abit about people being "trained and disciplined." We already have a few of those quotes up above.

Yes, and a reminder to some that the 2nd starts out this way: "A well regulated Militia...". In standard English usage, what follows must reflect this introduction.

 

[Revoltingest]

They wrote quite abit about people being "trained and disciplined." We already have a few of those quotes up above.

Aye, but I don't recall ever seeing that this was required as a condition of ownership.

 

[RRex]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

I happen to believe the Founding Fathers were very wise men. The proof is in the legacy they left us, particularly in our Founding documents.

 

[Thanda]

Yes, and a reminder to some that the 2nd starts out this way: "A well regulated Militia...". In standard English usage, what follows must reflect this introduction.

It does reflect the introduction. However, it is not limited by the introduction. The wording says two things. One it says the people (not the military or a militia) have a right to keep and bear arms. Two it says the reason this right should not be infringed is because they have a right to have a militia.

Okay there are quite a few things to point out here. Firstly the people (not the military or a militia) have not only a right to take up arms (which could mean that the state could keep weapons in a central place and people could go there to take them up at times of war) they also have the right to keep them - that is, in their own personal possession. This is important.

Secondly the amendment is not presuming to create a right, but rather to protect one ("the right...shall not be infringed"). This means those writing the amendment were assuming that the right already existed and they are merely trying to ensure that the right was never infringed upon in the future. They then give as their reason for wanting to ensure that this right is never infringed their belief that "A well regulated Militia...".

The question then becomes, this right that was being protected, what was its assumed purpose before the founding fathers chose to protect it for the sake of maintaining well regulated militias? The answer seems to be quite clear, people had a right to hunt to feed their families and they had the right to shoot to protect their families. These are the rights that are assumed by the amendment. And the need for a well regulated militia simply provided the founding fathers with a reason to codify the right in the constitution.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin


I happen to believe the Founding Fathers were very wise men. The proof is in the legacy they left us, particularly in our Founding documents.

They were also lucky to be able to craft a document from scratch in a receptive environment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In this country, I think the loss of our gun rights would be very problematic, especially since criminals seem to have free and unfettered access to them.

A serious problem in America is the ease of many criminals to get a gun, or even those who are suspicious to get a gun - legally and easily. America is in a state where doing away with the Second would not be good because of the massive flood of illegal guns, but we can still take several steps - many of them are very easily done - to make it harder to acquire a gun if you shouldn't have them with having only a very minimal effect on the legal rights of legal citizens (do remember, nothings perfect). But, overall, America isn't a very responsible country (our driving laws work together with our guns laws to give tremendous evidence to this claim).

Yes, and a reminder to some that the 2nd starts out this way: "A well regulated Militia...". In standard English usage, what follows must reflect this introduction.

I'm not a fan of "original intent," but I think they got the guns thing right. They may not have even considered it a thought that a boy wouldn't be trained by his father to shoot, because hunting was a necessity. We also didn't have police, national guard, or anything like that, so it was also more of an imperative to be able to know how to defend your home and knowing if you even can. And because the Founders were well educated, I have no doubts they had the violent history of Europe in mind, the constant shifting and changing of territory, and were wanting the best way to prevent that, which is a local force that can assemble at a minutes notice and who are well trained to defend their city and each other. It may be why the Second does begin with "a well regulated militia." Even Sun Tsu warned of invading difficult cities - make them all difficult!
One thing that surprises me that gun enthusiasts, nuts, and lobbists don't drool over is Sweden. America is the only nation with more guns, but Sweden doesn't have the crime or the problem with guns. A very big difference is that they are trained to use their guns, and they trained to use them with each other in order to defend each other.

 

[metis]

It does reflect the introduction. However, it is not limited by the introduction. The wording says two things. One it says the people (not the military or a militia) have a right to keep and bear arms. Two it says the reason this right should not be infringed is because they have a right to have a militia.

Okay there are quite a few things to point out here. Firstly the people (not the military or a militia) have not only a right to take up arms (which could mean that the state could keep weapons in a central place and people could go there to take them up at times of war) they also have the right to keep them - that is, in their own personal possession. This is important.

Secondly the amendment is not presuming to create a right, but rather to protect one ("the right...shall not be infringed"). This means those writing the amendment were assuming that the right already existed and they are merely trying to ensure that the right was never infringed upon in the future. They then give as their reason for wanting to ensure that this right is never infringed their belief that "A well regulated Militia...".

The question then becomes, this right that was being protected, what was its assumed purpose before the founding fathers chose to protect it for the sake of maintaining well regulated militias? The answer seems to be quite clear, people had a right to hunt to feed their families and they had the right to shoot to protect their families. These are the rights that are assumed by the amendment. And the need well regulated militia simply providing the founding fathers with a reason to codify the right in the constitution.

Back during the time of the FF, most of the state militias had reserves, sometimes known as "minute men". These men were trained, but only tended to be called up when needed. And since much of our country was wilderness, and since so many families relied on hunting, there was the general view that most people did have the right to their weapons, no doubt.

But what's codified in the 2nd is not in reference to common Joe as a person but was in reference to "A well-regulated militia...". The SCOTUS has never throughout its history taken the view that all men have the right to "bear arms" and/or to have any weapon of their choice. Some people have been disallowed having guns, and some weapons and guns have been disallowed throughout our long history. Even though we don't as much emphasize "past-practice" as much as the Brits do, for example, we still do rely on it to a large extent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It does reflect the introduction. However, it is not limited by the introduction. The wording says two things. One it says the people (not the military or a militia) have a right to keep and bear arms. Two it says the reason this right should not be infringed is because they have a right to have a militia.

He was pointing out the grammatical function of the Second. Because it begins with "a well regulated militia," we can know that a militia is the focus. It then moves to saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, and concludes by saying the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does have its final clause saying the right of the people, but clearly there is a pretty big focus on it being a part of a militia.

 

[metis]

One thing that surprises me that gun enthusiasts, nuts, and lobbists don't drool over is Sweden. America is the only nation with more guns, but Sweden doesn't have the crime or the problem with guns. A very big difference is that they are trained to use their guns, and they trained to use them with each other in order to defend each other.

Knowing the Swedes, I'm quite positive their checking out of applications is very thorough.

BTW, somewhat related, I was talking with a fellow Jew who lives in Israel whereas there's lots of guns in civilian hands, and he says they think we're nuts here in the States by being so willing to pass out guns as if it were candy. I've been to Israel twice, and I remember standing on a street in Jerusalem at one time, turning around, and seeing 6 guns. Needless to say, Israelis are very cautious as to whom they are willing to allow having guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

He was pointing out the grammatical function of the Second. Because it begins with "a well regulated militia," we can know that a militia is the focus. It then moves to saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, and concludes by saying the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does have its final clause saying the right of the people, but clearly there is a pretty big focus on it being a part of a militia.

This make sense.
It's one reason I favor better training of gun owners.
Trained people are safer too.

 

[Jake1001]

Back during the time of the FF, most of the state militias had reserves, sometimes known as "minute men". These men were trained, but only tended to be called up when needed. And since much of our country was wilderness, and since so many families relied on hunting, there was the general view that most people did have the right to their weapons, no doubt.

But what's codified in the 2nd is not in reference to common Joe as a person but was in reference to "A well-regulated militia...". The SCOTUS has never throughout its history taken the view that all men have the right to "bear arms" and/or to have any weapon of their choice. Some people have been disallowed having guns, and some weapons and guns have been disallowed throughout our long history. Even though we don't as much emphasize "past-practice" as much as the Brits do, for example, we still do rely on it to a large extent.

How does this apply to the case when the police become the criminals ? Nazi Germany is one example. The British in the time of the colonies is another. Assad is Syria is a recent example. In these cases, it seems to me, that a persecuted individual must either leave the country or become part of an armed militia.

The SCOTUS interpretation is consistent with allowing individuals to arm themselves as part of a militia. The recent development of mentally ill and more recently terrorists being armed with automatic weapons requires new gun control actions.

 

[Thanda]

He was pointing out the grammatical function of the Second. Because it begins with "a well regulated militia," we can know that a militia is the focus. It then moves to saying that because a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, and concludes by saying the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does have its final clause saying the right of the people, but clearly there is a pretty big focus on it being a part of a militia.

Yes it is the focus of why the right is being protected. However it is not presuming to create the right. The right already existed. Some rights are common knowledge. E.g. a person has a right to own a pot. We know that. We can't put every right in the constitution. But the constitution guarantees those right, which if it didn't would pose problems for the society.

So the mentioning of the Militias helps us understand why the founding fathers felt it necessary to guarantee a right that was already common knowledge.

So the point is this: if the second amendment created the right to keep and bear arms then the amendment very well be read to limit the bearing of arms for people who are in militias. But since it does not, and instead merely purports to guarantee a right it believes is already in existence we cannot read the first part of the sentence as a limitation of the second part.

 

[Thanda]

Back during the time of the FF, most of the state militias had reserves, sometimes known as "minute men". These men were trained, but only tended to be called up when needed. And since much of our country was wilderness, and since so many families relied on hunting, there was the general view that most people did have the right to their weapons, no doubt.

But what's codified in the 2nd is not in reference to common Joe as a person but was in reference to "A well-regulated militia...". The SCOTUS has never throughout its history taken the view that all men have the right to "bear arms" and/or to have any weapon of their choice. Some people have been disallowed having guns, and some weapons and guns have been disallowed throughout our long history. Even though we don't as much emphasize "past-practice" as much as the Brits do, for example, we still do rely on it to a large extent.

What views the SCOTUS has taken are not relevant to our discussions - since SCOTUS can one day overrule itself. What matters is what the text says. And the text presumes that a right already exists for the people (not the military or militias) to keep and bear arms (perhaps this right as extending from the right to life?).

Now obviously no right is absolute. So it stands to reason that even if a person has a right to something there may be circumstances where that right may be forfeited. E.g. the right to life may be forfeited if one has committed a capital crime. But the possibility for someone to lose their right to life under specific circumstances does not take away from the fact that originally they did have a right to life.

 

[RRex]

If I may -

The Judicial Branch is responsible for the interpretation of laws made by the Legislative and Executive Branches. This includes interpretation of the Constitution as our Founding document.

The rulings of SCOTUS do matter.

With respect.

RRex.

 

[Thanda]

If I may -

The Judicial Branch is responsible for the interpretation of laws made by the Legislative and Executive Branches. This includes interpretation of the Constitution as our Founding document.

The rulings of SCOTUS do matter.

With respect.

RRex.

Were you replying to me?

 

[metis]

What views the SCOTUS has taken are not relevant to our discussions - since SCOTUS can one day overrule itself. What matters is what the text says. And the text presumes that a right already exists for the people (not the military or militias) to keep and bear arms (perhaps this right as extending from the right to life?).

Now obviously no right is absolute. So it stands to reason that even if a person has a right to something there may be circumstances where that right may be forfeited. E.g. the right to life may be forfeited if one has committed a capital crime. But the possibility for someone to lose their right to life under specific circumstances does not take away from the fact that originally they did have a right to life.

The key part of what you wrote above that really is pertinent to my point is "Now obviously no right is absolute", and that is exactly how the SCOTUS has not only viewed the 2nd but also all other amendments. It does not state nor even imply "that a right already exists for the people (not the military or militias) to keep and bear arms...", and we know this not only from the wording but also how that decision was largely rationalized by the FF. It's been only the Heller Decision that has gone more in your direction, but that's not been the standard throughout our history, and even Heller does not fully open the door for an absolutist position of anyone and everyone having a weapon of their choice.

Therefore, with that in mind, along with the fact that conditions can and often have changed, one simply cannot logically claim that the 2nd is some sort of absolute right for every citizen to keep and bear arms. The situation in terms of where we were over 200 years ago and the types of weapons now available differ substantially, therefore "flexibility, but without losing sight of original intent" is the key here, and the "original intent" had mostly "A well-regulated militia..." in mind.

Either way, we actually are not as far apart as it may seem, or so it appears. It's sort of a glass half-full/half-empty kind of thingy, at least as I see it.

 

[metis]

If I may -

The Judicial Branch is responsible for the interpretation of laws made by the Legislative and Executive Branches. This includes interpretation of the Constitution as our Founding document.

The rulings of SCOTUS do matter.

With respect.

RRex.

Absolutely correct. There's an irony here that may rankle some, but in American political science it is sometimes said that "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is". Much like dealing with biblical scripture, interpretation is extremely important.

 

[dawny0826]

Why not?

I'm not comfortable with the idea of our government having that much control and leverage over the people. The people should always have the means to check a government that it elects to represent it.

I can't trust the intentions of a government that fuels the socioeconomical environments which contribute to gun violence.

I can't accept that only the government should have the ability to use guns to protect my body, my family and my property.

 

[Thanda]

The key part of what you wrote above that really is pertinent to my point is "Now obviously no right is absolute", and that is exactly how the SCOTUS has not only viewed the 2nd but also all other amendments. It does not state nor even imply "that a right already exists for the people (not the military or militias) to keep and bear arms...", and we know this not only from the wording but also how that decision was largely rationalized by the FF. It's been only the Heller Decision that has gone more in your direction, but that's not been the standard throughout our history, and even Heller does not fully open the door for an absolutist position of anyone and everyone having a weapon of their choice.

Therefore, with that in mind, along with the fact that conditions can and often have changed, one simply cannot logically claim that the 2nd is some sort of absolute right for every citizen to keep and bear arms. The situation in terms of where we were over 200 years ago and the types of weapons now available differ substantially, therefore "flexibility, but without losing sight of original intent" is the key here, and the "original intent" had mostly "A well-regulated militia..." in mind.

Either way, we actually are not as far apart as it may seem, or so it appears. It's sort of a glass half-full/half-empty kind of thingy, at least as I see it.

So long as we agree no right is absolute then I agree with you, the right to bear arms is also not absolute. That said there must be substantial reason why one would want to deny a right. And the right should only be denied under those substantial reasons.

What is the "it" in your sentence "It does not state nor even imply"?

 

[RRex]

Were you replying to me?

Yes.