Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Revoltingest]

On the contrary - depending on what laws are enacted with the amendment repealed, it could reduce my risk of getting shot when I'm in the US. It could also reduce the number of guns that are smuggled from your country to mine for criminals.

It's not that big a risk, especially if you avoid Detroit, Flint & St Louis.
But in any event, I don't want to give up any constitutional liberties just to soothe frightened Canuckistanians.
Grow a pair or stay home, ya mewl'n, flower arrange'n, quiche bake'n, fanny tapper!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not that big a risk, especially if you avoid Detroit, Flint & St Louis.

I live in the Windsor area. It's hard to avoid Detroit.

But in any event, I don't want to give up any constitutional liberties just to soothe frightened Canuckistanians.

Who says I'm frightened? It isn't a matter of emotion; it's a matter of math. It's the recognition that your country has a very high rate of firearm deaths, and that the availability of firearms might have something to do with it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's lies at the heart of US constitutionalism, second only to the First Amendment, though that is up for debate.

If you repeal the 2nd Amendment, you take away a fundamental part of US culture and way of life.

Technically, the 2nd was intended for militias, and this "gun lifestyle" is very much a modern aspect of American life, and even our romanticized gun toting cowboy often didn't carry into a city (it was illegal to do so in many of them). Our gun culture, and obsession with guns, is just downright disgusting.

 

[metis]

I live in the Windsor area...

Really?! We're over there at least once a month until we go up to our place in da U.P. for the summer, and we spend most of our time over on Erie Street, since my wife is from Italy, or over at the casino, since my wife gambles-- I don't because if I try, I lose.

We almost moved there back in the early 1970's as we were looking for houses on Tecumseh near Jackson Park, but we decided not to make the move as my wife's folks couldn't read or write English, so my wife had to be over to help them out typically twice or so per week, and they lived near Gratiot in East Detroit, now Eastpointe.

 

[Ingledsva]

Except "tanks and rockets and jets and bombers" didn't help them much in the Vietnam war.

Absolutely correct.

You can't actually any longer - win - a war that has guerrilla fighters.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Technically, the 2nd was intended for militias, and this "gun lifestyle" is very much a modern aspect of American life, and even our romanticized gun toting cowboy often didn't carry into a city (it was illegal to do so in many of them). Our gun culture, and obsession with guns, is just downright disgusting.

That is actually not true, and it is evident from the writings of the time, - that it meant, - (having just saved ourselves from what we considered corrupt government control,) - that we the people have the right to hold our own weapons - to keep our freedom in the future - from a corrupt government grab, etc.

In other words we have to have personal weapons to fight a guerrilla war with a corrupt government.

And the idea that the "gun lifestyle" is modern - is ridiculous.

We are talking about the past in which MOST people had weapons for hunting, protection from crooks, etc. They kept them in their homes - and trained their children on how to use them.

We also know from newspapers, etc., that they held shooting competitions, which means they had fun practicing with their weapons. And they also had traveling shows with the latest weapons, and sharp shooters.

In other words just like us NOW.

*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is actually not true, and it is evident from the writings of the time, - that it meant, - (having just saved ourselves from what we considered corrupt government control,) - that we the people have the right to hold our own weapons - to keep our freedom in the future - from a corrupt government grab, etc.

If you read their writings, they were all into cities having well trained and disciplined militias. It's even in the text of the second.

And the idea that the "gun lifestyle" is modern - is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous to think we've always had obsessions with guns and totting them around. Even during our "Wild West" days, many cities did not allow people to carry them. Travel advisories warned against it. The OK Corral shoot out was likely over outlaws refusing to adhere to local gun laws. We've always had them for hunting and defense, but we didn't carry them everywhere, we didn't believe you had to have to be free, and we didn't insist on them being everywhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is actually not true, and it is evident from the writings of the time, - that it meant, - (having just saved ourselves from what we considered corrupt government control,) - that we the people have the right to hold our own weapons - to keep our freedom in the future - from a corrupt government grab, etc.

In other words we have to have personal weapons to fight a guerrilla war with a corrupt government.

I think it's worth remembering that "our own weapons" and "militia" aren't mutually exclusive. At the time, militia members were often (generally?) expected to arm themselves with their own weapons.

Also, it's worth remembering that a lot of the purpose of the Second Amendment was to limit the federal government's power over state militias. I don't think it was so much a matter of no government control over guns at all, but more that what control there was would be at the lower (and hopefully more responsive?) tiers.

And the idea that the "gun lifestyle" is modern - is ridiculous.

We are talking about the past in which MOST people had weapons for hunting, protection from crooks, etc.

... rounding up their escaped slaves, putting down slave revolts...

They kept them in their homes - and trained their children on how to use them.

We also know from newspapers, etc., that they held shooting competitions, which means they had fun practicing with their weapons. And they also had traveling shows with the latest weapons, and sharp shooters.

In other words just like us NOW.

*

FWIW, the regular military also holds shooting competitions, and has sharpshooters. An example: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/canadian-military-marksmen-take-top-prize-at-competition

... and I know a couple of military pilots. They drool over the latest and greatest military aircraft the way that I'd drool over a hot car.

 

[David1967]

I don't trust government enuf to let only them be armed.
They're useful for self defense.
The lefties would just be too self satisfied if they had their way.

Short. To the point and all true.

 

[Revoltingest]

I live in the Windsor area. It's hard to avoid Detroit.

Who says I'm frightened? It isn't a matter of emotion; it's a matter of math. It's the recognition that your country has a very high rate of firearm deaths, and that the availability of firearms might have something to do with it.

Fright is what leads people to give up liberty in exchange for the promise of security granted by one's master.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I have seen both sides misrepresent this argument.

What the second amendment was designed to do was:

A: Allow civilian use of firearms for hunting, defense, and recreation.

B: Prevent a state or central government from having complete control over civilians.

C: Prevent a central government from having complete control over the state governments.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have seen both sides misrepresent this argument.
What the second amendment was designed to do was:
A: Allow civilian use of firearms for hunting, defense, and recreation.
B: Prevent a state or central government from having complete control over civilians.
C: Prevent a central government from having complete control over the state governments.

I don't recall "A" being addressed by the founders, but "B" & "C" are reasonable.
From this, we may deduce that the amendment referred to militarily capable small arms.
That would be muzzle loading rifles in the day, & magazine fed automatic rifles today.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have seen both sides misrepresent this argument.

What the second amendment was designed to do was:

A: Allow civilian use of firearms for hunting, defense, and recreation.

B: Prevent a state or central government from having complete control over civilians.

Central, not state. The Fourteenth Amendment didn't come until much later.

C: Prevent a central government from having complete control over the state governments.

... especially to prevent northern states from outlawing southern slave-owner militias as a step toward emancipation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't recall "A" being addressed by the founders, but "B" & "C" are reasonable.
From this, we may deduce that the amendment referred to militarily capable small arms.
That would be muzzle loading rifles in the day, & magazine fed automatic rifles today.

Why do you consider an automatic rifle the modern equivalent of a musket? Why wouldn't it be, say, the modern equivalent of a Revolutionary War-era small cannon or grenade? Why is the criteria the weapon's weight and not its offensive capability?

The American Founding Fathers were acquainted with weapons that could take out a group of people (and that were reasonably necessary to fight wars, even then); did the Second Amendment legalize those mass killing weapons at the time?

That aside, we can also deduce that its purpose was to facilitate the arming of actual or potential soldiers, with the understanding that these soldiers would be responsible for providing their own weapons for use in wartime. This implies to me that restrictions on weapons ownership that match military "fitness for duty" requirements (e.g. maximum and minimum age, mental stability, physical fitness) would be in line with the intent of the Amendment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you consider an automatic rifle the modern equivalent of a musket?

This is the wrong question.
At the time, muskets were already obsolete, ie, no longer militarily capable.
This became apparent during the revolutionary war, when rifles proved greatly superior to muskets (which generally are defined as smoothbore).
Addressing equivalency.....
The long rifle of 1780 was the most advanced military small arm of the day.
It is reasonable to state that the Constitution's framers envisioned this as protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Their intention is the balance of small arms weaponry power between citizens, government & foreign attackers.
Thus, one cannot reasonably claim that only muzzle loading rifles are covered.
The modern equivalent is the magazine fed automatic rifle.

Why wouldn't it be, say, the modern equivalent of a Revolutionary War-era small cannon or grenade? Why is the criteria the weapon's weight and not its offensive capability?

You could make an argument that even larger weapons would be covered.
I don't, because citizens typically owned state of the art rifles, but not cannons.

The American Founding Fathers were acquainted with weapons that could take out a group of people (and that were reasonably necessary to fight wars, even then); did the Second Amendment legalize those mass killing weapons at the time?

Capability of small arms has increased over the centuries.
I don't see this addressed by the founders.
But subsequent regulation has required a special license to own automatic weapons.
Such licensees happen to be few, & very responsible.

That aside, we can also deduce that its purpose was to facilitate the arming of actual or potential soldiers, with the understanding that these soldiers would be responsible for providing their own weapons for use in wartime. This implies to me that restrictions on weapons ownership that match military "fitness for duty" requirements (e.g. maximum and minimum age, mental stability, physical fitness) would be in line with the intent of the Amendment.

Standards for becoming a soldier have historically been far more permissive.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#Confederation_period_.281783.E2.80.931787.29

 

[Draka]

Why do you consider an automatic rifle the modern equivalent of a musket? Why wouldn't it be, say, the modern equivalent of a Revolutionary War-era small cannon or grenade? Why is the criteria the weapon's weight and not its offensive capability?

The American Founding Fathers were acquainted with weapons that could take out a group of people (and that were reasonably necessary to fight wars, even then); did the Second Amendment legalize those mass killing weapons at the time?

That aside, we can also deduce that its purpose was to facilitate the arming of actual or potential soldiers, with the understanding that these soldiers would be responsible for providing their own weapons for use in wartime. This implies to me that restrictions on weapons ownership that match military "fitness for duty" requirements (e.g. maximum and minimum age, mental stability, physical fitness) would be in line with the intent of the Amendment.

Yes. Very much yes. Exactly yes.

I love how much people want to ignore the whole first part of the Amendment. When it was written, what it meant, those things don't seem to matter to some people. Just the part that says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"...they don't give a crap about the who, when, and why.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. Very much yes. Exactly yes.

I love how much people want to ignore the whole first part of the Amendment. When it was written, what it meant, those things don't seem to matter to some people. Just the part that says "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"...they don't give a crap about the who, when, and why.

Rather than ignore it, I interpret it differently from those in the anti camp.

 

[Draka]

Rather than ignore it, I interpret it differently from those in the anti camp.

Well, it shouldn't need that much "interpreting". It clearly states it is about arming a militia. A militia is a trained, organized, fighting force. To ignore that in favor of trying to "interpret" it to mean otherwise is to still pretty much ignore the first part of the Amendment.

Damn, people treat the Constitution like the bible. If they don't like what it says they make it mean something else. At least with the bible, being a mythology written in allegory and metaphor it is at least reasonable. The Constitution was not meant to be legend or myth to be deciphered through metaphor to be interpreted to fit a person's liking.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, it shouldn't need that much "interpreting".

I agree.
It should be brilliantly obvious to all that I read it correctly.

Damn, people treat the Constitution like the bible.

This is because it is the fundamental law of the land.
Example:
We have freedom of speech & religion in every state because the 1st Amendment prohibits any laws which would conflict.
The 2nd is also the law of the land, & shall not be abridged by any legal authority, including the fed gov.
The Bible differs in that it has no legal authority at all.
So the Constitution is far more important.

If they don't like what it says they make it mean something else.

That accusation flows in both directions.
My perspective is the originalist interpretation, ie, whatever the framers
intended when they wrote it, that is the law....whether I like it or not.

At least with the bible, being a mythology written in allegory and metaphor it is at least reasonable. The Constitution was not meant to be legend or myth to be deciphered through metaphor to be interpreted to fit a person's liking.

I'm curious.....would you allow the federal government to enact laws which violate the Constitution?

 

[McBell]

Damn, people treat the Constitution like the bible. If they don't like what it says they make it mean something else. At least with the bible, being a mythology written in allegory and metaphor it is at least reasonable. The Constitution was not meant to be legend or myth to be deciphered through metaphor to be interpreted to fit a person's liking.

Yes, people do treat the Constitution like they do the Bible.
And just like the Bible, they are holed up on their own favoured interpretations.
You have demonstrated that fact fairly well.
Thank you.