Second Amendment

[suncowiam]

The following article and the youtube example is exactly the way I feel about US's issue on guns and the second amendment.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9540747/video-second-amendment-musket

Agree? Disagree?

Why?

Keep it constructive!

 

[Noa]

Can you give a tl;dr?

 

[BSM1]

Seriously? Guns are now household pollutants? Is that what the logic has come down to? The article made the point that the majority of guns deaths were suicide and not homicide. I really could not care less about the number of people that blow their brains out. My weapon is there to at least give me a fighting chance in case some one tries to blow my brains out.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Criminals will always get guns whether they are banned or not. You may as well let the citizens have it so they can defend themselves and it will give the good people an advantage. Most people aren't criminals and if people were allowed to have it, there wouldn't be as many shootings. A mugger will go after someone who is defenseless rather than someone is armed. That's common sense for the criminal. They are less likely to mug you if you are armed.

 

[Noa]

Ah.

My position on the gun topic in the US has always been very simple: it is a political fight and one that I hope my side wins eventually. It is not a debate, it is not a discussion. It is simply whether or not one side has enough political capital to enforce their viewpoint. The 'debate' has long been over. It is now nothing more than a political battle.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[QUOTE="BSM1, post: 4467902, member: 38603" I really could not care less about the number of people that blow their brains out.[/QUOTE]
That speaks volumes ...

 

[Skwim]

The Supreme Court really blew it in their 5 to 4 decision in the Heller case when it said:

1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(my emphasis)​

Yet there it is, plain as day:

The Second Amendment:

"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."​

(my emphasis)​

Meaning of "well regulated militia"
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[151] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[152]
All sources; Wikipedia

But this "nothing more" was critical enough to preface the whole amendment; underscoring the reason what follows has any substance. So where are all these gun owners who've had proper discipline and training and belong to a "A well regulated militia"? There ain't any because the Supreme Court decided the phrase was meaningless: it doesn't matter. The Second Amendment may just as well say,

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
​

Of course, if a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, then there's no need of the Second Amendment at all. Let's do the decent thing and repeal it.



EDIT to correct having dropped "being necessary to the security of a free State," from the Second Amendment.

 

[Noa]

Repealing will never happen. But it is entirely possible the Supreme Court could make other decisions in the future.

 

[Jainarayan]

Of course, if a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, then there's no need of the Second Amendment at all. Let's do the decent thing and repeal it.

I don't know that a militia is unnecessary. There could be an occasion when a citizen militia might be called upon to aid US troops deployed on American soil, which I think requires and extreme circumstance (Red Dawn?). Admittedly it's a stretch.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

The Supreme Court really blew it in their 5 to 4 decision in the Heller case when it said:

1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(my emphasis)​

Yet there it is, plain as day:

The Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia being , the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."​

(my emphasis)​

Meaning of "well regulated militia"
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[151] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[152]
All sources; Wikipedia

But this "nothing more" was critical enough to preface the whole amendment; underscoring the reason what follows has any substance. So where are all these gun owners who've had proper discipline and training and belong to a "A well regulated militia"? There ain't any because the Supreme Court decided the phrase was meaningless: it doesn't matter. The Second Amendment may just as well say,

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
​

Of course, if a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, then there's no need of the Second Amendment at all. Let's do the decent thing and repeal it.

People say as if only the militia could own guns and that's what it means. That is not true and people twist it around to say "Hey you, see, it only means that the militia should own it, not the people." . For one thing there's a comma between the sentences. It says there should be a regulated militia AS WELL as people having the right to bear arms. If only the militia could have it, why was it possible for people to own guns way back then? Can anyone answer that? Not to mention the numerous quotes of the Founding Fathers insisting the people should be armed.


Repealing the 2nd amendment is just asking for trouble. It should never be illegal for a person who wishes to defend themselves.

 

[Noa]

As I stated before, this debate has been had so much in this country that is essentially meaningless now. It is never seriously debated anymore. Whoever is in power simply attempts to push the state of things their directionw while they can.

 

[freethinker44]

If only the militia could have it, why was it possible for people to own guns way back then? Can anyone answer that?

Because it doesn't say only the militia could be armed. It says only a militia has the right to be armed. There's a difference.
Of course, the supreme court famously made the wrong interpretation extending the right to non-militia members as well, but once they come to their senses and reinterpret it the way it should be interpreted, we'll be able to pass some common sense gun laws if not an all out ban on private gun ownership.

Edit: I phrased this awkwardly. What I mean is, there is a difference between not having a right to do something and being illegal to do it. For example, you don't have a right to drive a vehicle, but that doesn't mean no one can drive.

 

[Noa]

There will need to be a significant cultural shift before any serious progress is made with US gun laws. It will likely happen eventually, but it is a long, long ways away.

 

[Skwim]

People say as if only the militia could own guns and that's what it means. That is not true and people twist it around to say "Hey you, see, it only means that the militia should own it, not the people." . For one thing there's a comma between the sentences. It says there should be a regulated militia AS WELL as people having the right to bear arms.

There is only one sentence. The commas set off a parenthetical element, in this case, "being necessary to the security of a free State," that serves to clarify. Parenthetical elements are considered to be nonessential to the meaning of a sentence. In other words, without its parenthetical element the Second Amendment would likely read, "To maintain a well regulated militia the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

 

[esmith]

there will always be the well meaning that want to remove firearms from the civilian population, unfortunately only law abiding civilians will comply. I can guarantee you that if a person wants a firearm they will obtain them. The reason I say this is that every nation has firearms and there are those that will deal in them. So until you obtain utopia it isn't going to happen. But even in utopia, given human nature, there will always be those that want more and the easiest way to obtain more is through a barrel of a firearm. When the last two people stand on this earth one will kill the other. Yeah I have a very **** poor opinion of humans.

 

[Curious George]

People say as if only the militia could own guns and that's what it means. That is not true and people twist it around to say "Hey you, see, it only means that the militia should own it, not the people." . For one thing there's a comma between the sentences. It says there should be a regulated militia AS WELL as people having the right to bear arms. If only the militia could have it, why was it possible for people to own guns way back then? Can anyone answer that? Not to mention the numerous quotes of the Founding Fathers insisting the people should be armed.

I can answer that. The people are the militia. There is no constitutional grant to establish a militia because the militia is the people for whom the constitution was written, the militia is and has always been in existence. We were to have an armed people, who the government could call upon for service in defending against foreign and domestic threats.

 

[Skwim]

I can answer that. The people are the militia. There is no constitutional grant to establish a militia because the militia is the people for whom the constitution was written, the militia is and has always been in existence. We were to have an armed people, who the government could call upon for service in defending against foreign and domestic threats.

Okay, cite your source that backs up your claim that "the militia is the people for whom the constitution was written." Are seven year-old girls part of this militia? How about those who have an intellectual development disorder. Or wasn't the constitution written for them? Even granting your claim here, are all these militiamen and militiawomen "well regulated"?

 

[BSM1]

[QUOTE="BSM1, post: 4467902, member: 38603" I really could not care less about the number of people that blow their brains out.

That speaks volumes ...[/QUOTE]


Your point?

 

[McBell]

The following article and the youtube example is exactly the way I feel about US's issue on guns and the second amendment.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9540747/video-second-amendment-musket

Agree? Disagree?

Why?

Keep it constructive!

Interesting.
Are you of the mind that gun laws have not changed since the time of muskets?
If not, why would you agree with the asininity of the first video?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see why people fail to realize we can make guns much harder to get without taking them away from law abiding citizens. We are in a very dire need of very serious overhauls to our gun laws, but their are many jackasses who want even more guns even though that is like throwing chlorine triflouride on a fire to put it out, dowsing the larger fire with lighter fluid, and then using an aerosol can to blow it out. Yes, the "bad guys" will have access to guns because American society is so problematic when it comes to guns, but we can start working on fixing that problem rather than just saying "oh well."