Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[metis]

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.

And we know that this is what the "founding fathers" meant because they wrote more than just what's in the Constitution in this regard. They didn't trust centralized government (remember the Articles of Confederation whereas we had what was more like 13 countries versus just 1), and they felt that state militias would mitigate against the threat of federal overreach. It was not viewed as some sort of intrinsic right that all Americans could own weapons, and many SCOTUS decisions since the Constitution was written and first amended upheld gun and weapon restrictions both in terms of type and who may have them.

 

[averageJOE]

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.

I think it was Bill Maher or John Stewart but they used the term "ammo-sexual" to describe them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I think it's inevitable. The Constitution is the compromise end product of negotiations between people with varied and often conflicting objectives. It was "interpreted" to suit different viewpoints right from the beginning.

... and any speculation about how the Founding Fathers would have felt (as if thus was ever a single thing) about modern weapons in modern-day America is just guesswork.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

... and any speculation about how the Founding Fathers would have felt (as if thus was ever a single thing) about modern weapons in modern-day America is just guesswork.

I would say it's less than guesswork. We can reasonably assume they would be appalled by the fact we give out guns without training people given by what they wrote, but the hard facts are they had muskets that you could fire once before having to take some time to reload, and they weren't that accurate. It's also reasonable to assume they would be ok with hunting rifles. But hand guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, and guns capable of firing massive amounts of bullets very quickly and/or are high powered, we can't even guess. But that's why they left the Constitution open and encouraged reevaluating it and adjusting it as needed.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Unfortunately this is a misrepresented statement, as there would be no possible way for citizens to defend themselves from a tyrannical goverment as the founders intended without equal footing in weapon capacity.

Additionally in that time period rifles where not prohibited in the U.S. rendering your argument invalid.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

There are things I agree with and disagree with in the constitution.

However I recognize both a being a part of it.

What annoys me to no end is many people to both the Left and the Right try to warp it to suit themselves.

 

[metis]

There are things I agree with and disagree with in the constitution.

However I recognize both a being a part of it.

What annoys me to no end is many people to both the Left and the Right try to warp it to suit themselves.

And this also includes some on the SCOTUS as we've seen. The most recent decision was at odds of previous SCOTUS decisions on this matter, and is it any surprise that the five Republican appointees were the ones that broke precedent.

To show the "wisdom" of Scalia as expressed in an interview last year, he said that he tends to believe any "hand-held" weapon is covered under the 2nd Amendment, which is completely without historical precedent to begin with, but then he took it a step further when asked whether this should also be extended to hand-held anti-aircraft missile launchers, and his response was that he'd have to think more about that.

So, if anyone wants a course in Lunacy 101, take "Professor" Scalia's class.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

And this also includes some on the SCOTUS as we've seen. The most recent decision was at odds of previous SCOTUS decisions on this matter, and is it any surprise that the five Republican appointees were the ones that broke precedent.

To show the "wisdom" of Scalia as expressed in an interview last year, he said that he tends to believe any "hand-held" weapon is covered under the 2nd Amendment, which is completely without historical precedent to begin with, but then he took it a step further when asked whether this should also be extended to hand-held anti-aircraft missile launchers, and his response was that he'd have to think more about that.

So, if anyone wants a course in Lunacy 101, take "Professor" Scalia's class.

Like I have said before. I do not always agree with the constitution and the meanings behind It, however in the constitutional meanings a man could very well own such a weapon.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unfortunately this is a misrepresented statement, as there would be no possible way for citizens to defend themselves from a tyrannical goverment as the founders intended without equal footing in weapon capacity.

Misrepresented?
No.....history shows that asymmetric wars can be won by the weaker side....weaker in terms of military might, that is.

Additionally in that time period rifles where not prohibited in the U.S. rendering your argument invalid.

I don't understand this point.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Misrepresented?
No.....history shows that asymmetric wars can be won by the weaker side....weaker in terms of military might, that is.

I don't understand this point.

Yes but it is still not the likely victor.

You claimed that the founding fathers allowed muskets but not rifles which where the greater weapon when this is not the case.

 

[metis]

Like I have said before. I do not always agree with the constitution and the meanings behind It, however in the constitutional meanings a man could very well own such a weapon.

That's very much a stretch, both because no such weapon is hinted at by the Constitution, plus no such weapon would have been allowed in civilian use based on previous SCOTUS decisions. The 2nd Amendment refers to the right of states to have their own "militia", and up until this last decision it was never viewed as pertaining to every one's right to hold any hand-held weapon they may want.

Different weapons have been outlawed, plus different people have not been allowed to have guns legally, and previous SCOTUS decisions upheld this general approach. The recent decision was a totally bizarre decision that was not based on any precedent whatsoever. According to Scalia's possible drift, I could possibly and legally have my own personal hand-held nuclear device. Or how about having my own bazooka?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes but it is still not the likely victor.

To be unarmed would make it even less likely to win.

You claimed that the founding fathers allowed muskets but not rifles which where the greater weapon when this is not the case.

No, I wouldn't claim something so absurd.
We had rifles.
The Brits didn't.
We kicked Limey buttowski.

 

[metis]

No, I wouldn't claim something so absurd.
We had rifles.
The Brits didn't.
We kicked Limey buttowski.

Only because us Frogs made that possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only because us Frogs made that possible.

True dat!
I give them great credit for picking the winning side.....& for supplying Ben Franklin with babes.

 

[Sunstone]

Why not?

I don't know whether repealing the Second is currently politically feasible, but I think it soon enough will be if the NRA and other groups continue to succeed in thwarting the will of the people. There are reforms they oppose that are supported by nearly 90% of the population. Some reforms are even supported by a majority of NRA rank and file members.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

To be unarmed would make it even less likely to win.

No, I wouldn't claim something so absurd.
We had rifles.
The Brits didn't.
We kicked Limey buttowski.

Yes it would, and the founding fathers did not intend for them to lose, that is a fact.

The opinion asks whether or not you agree with them.

 

[metis]

True dat!
I give them great credit for picking the winning side.....& for supplying Ben Franklin with babes.

Well, at least Franklin knew just how good looking us Frogs really are. Now, those that are mostly Scottish, on the other hand, ...

Anyhow, have a good weekend. Going to Mexican village Sunday for din whereas I can have my pollo en mole, a great Froggy dish.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, at least Franklin knew just how good looking us Frogs really are.

I'll bet you never would'a had a shot at Ben.

 

[metis]

I'll bet you never would'a had a shot at Ben.

Not my type, especially since anyone who uses a metal line hooked up to a kite flying during a thunderstorm has some serious "issues".

 

[Revoltingest]

Not my type, especially since anyone who uses a metal line hooked up to a kite flying during a thunderstorm has some serious "issues".

I don't recall if that story was apocryphal or not, but he was a leading scientist in his day.
The 18th century version of a rock star he was.