Second Amendment

[Theweirdtophat]

So, where are all these well regulated militias that all gun owners belong to?

Yup. It's like saying the team doesn't wear uniforms, the players do. A salient point? Hardly.


If so, it's because they are needed to form a well regulated militia.

I'm saying that ownership doesn't strictly apply to just militia. Otherwise back then you wouldn't have seen common folk or farmers carrying guns of any kind. People will also say that it should be repealed because there's automatic weapons now and that the Founding Fathers would have repealed it if they knew such a thing would exist which doesn't make sense.

They weren't stupid and many were well versed in science and knew full well those weapons would advance over time. The point was people should have something to defend themselves with. Whether it's a long ranged one or a melee weapon. And that one should not have to depend on a militia or a police force to save them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

People are afraid of a tyrannical government but you consider that a mental illness because they want a means of defense because their government can turn on them?

People are afraid of a tyrannical government, but go send your gun totting people against a military and see who gets slaughtered the fastest (hint: it won't be the military). People put out this idea that the Founding Fathers wanted civilians to be able to fight against the government, but they saw, first hand, how ineffective the militia was against the British and just how poorly they performed.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

People are afraid of a tyrannical government, but go send your gun totting people against a military and see who gets slaughtered the fastest (hint: it won't be the military). People put out this idea that the Founding Fathers wanted civilians to be able to fight against the government, but they saw, first hand, how ineffective the militia was against the British and just how poorly they performed.

Very exaggerated. That's one case of many and it isn't because the military is more advanced. Having more toys doesn't mean victory. You know there are more people than the military right? What about the French revolution? Didn't see the military succeed there. There's multiple cases where the population prevailed. If you send like 10 militia of course it's not going to work. And have you never heard of guerilla warfare? Look at how well The Vietnamese lasted against the US and they weren't as advanced as they were.

It's absurd to think that just because it's the military, they automatically win. They don't. And I've yet to see justification for ridding weapons from the civilians.

 

[Skwim]

I'm saying that ownership doesn't strictly apply to just militia. Otherwise back then you wouldn't have seen common folk or farmers carrying guns of any kind.

Yup. And the reason common folk or farmers were granted a constitutional right to carrying guns was to form a "well regulated militia."

The point was people should have something to defend themselves with. Whether it's a long ranged one or a melee weapon. And that one should not have to depend on a militia or a police force to save them.

But to form a militia was exactly the point, which is why the Amendment doesn't say:

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

but

"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."
​

 

[McBell]

Actually, it doesn't really matter because the Amendment is still regarded as binding. It's like quibbling about the meaning of a specific word in the Bible because it may have meant something different way back whenever. The point being, if a meaning has changed so much as to render a word useless, misleading, or even wrong, then it's incumbent on those who have the power to correct it to do so. If they don't then one has to assume it correlates with the present day meaning.

If the argument is what the writers of the Second Amendment meant when it was written, then, yes, it matters.
In fact, it is essential.
Unless of course the truth is not the goal.

Or is your argument "to hell with the original intentions of the Second Amendment, let us change it to what we want it to mean"?

 

[Skwim]

If the argument is what the writers of the Second Amendment meant when it was written, then, yes, it matters.
In fact, it is essential.
Unless of course the truth is not the goal.

Or is your argument "to hell with the original intentions of the Second Amendment, let us change it to what we want it to mean"?

*sigh* My point is, if a meaning has changed so much as to render a word useless, misleading, or even wrong, then it's incumbent on those who have the power to correct it to do so. If they don't then one has to assume it correlates with the present day meaning.

No change in wording has been made in the Amendment so it's reasonable to assume that today's meaning is close enough to the old meaning, if not identical.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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."

They fail to realize this because the gun lobby has done a brilliant job at convincing people that any regulation of guns or ammo is an attack on their constitutional rights that must be resisted with all means. I suppose it's just an incidental side-effect that this policy and agenda also results in a steady increase in healthy profits for the gun industry.

 

[esmith]

So, where are all these well regulated militias that all gun owners belong to?

Yup. It's like saying the team doesn't wear uniforms, the players do. A salient point? Hardly.


If so, it's because they are needed to form a well regulated militia.

http://www.sos.idaho.gov/elect/stcon/articl14.htm

 

[Curious George]

All gun owners belong to militias that are well regulated? Yah, sure. But in as much as you seem unaware:

From Merriam-Webster

WELL

: in a good, proper, or positive way


REGULATE
reg·u·lat·ed reg·u·lat·ing

1
a : to govern or direct according to rule

b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>



MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service​

Under 2 you have your answer.

These are law abiding citizens, who respect the law and the constitution, and would answer the call (supposedly), since they do after all, abide by the law...what is hard for you to understand?

 

[Curious George]

It means there should be a regulated militia and the people should have arms. It says the right of the people, not the right of the militia. If that was the case you wouldn't see normal people having guns back then. They meant it for the people, not just militia on it's own. Not to mention there's numerous quotes of the Founding Fathers saying the people should not be disarmed.

The people were the militia back then.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, it doesn't really matter because the Amendment is still regarded as binding. It's like quibbling about the meaning of a specific word in the Bible because it may have meant something different way back whenever. The point being, if a meaning has changed so much as to render a word useless, misleading, or even wrong, then it's incumbent on those who have the power to correct it to do so. If they don't then one has to assume it correlates with the present day meaning.

Plain meaning of the text is certainly the most important, but when there is ambiguity as in questions like this, historical meaning is very important.

 

[Curious George]

People are afraid of a tyrannical government, but go send your gun totting people against a military and see who gets slaughtered the fastest (hint: it won't be the military). People put out this idea that the Founding Fathers wanted civilians to be able to fight against the government, but they saw, first hand, how ineffective the militia was against the British and just how poorly they performed.

You are mistaken.

 

[Curious George]

My post is about the second amendment which is supposedly the basis of all gun laws is the US for civilians.

The second amendment has not changed nor updated to accurately and specifically detail what is allowed or not allowed concerning civilian armament. It is vague and can be argued from opposing angles too easily.

Yet no law or action was passed declaring new weaponry outside the scope of the second amendment. The law that was passed was directed at automatic weapons such as the Tommy gun which gave us the 1939 u.s. v. Miller decision. So, the problem with your theory is that the government had ample opportunity to change the definition but never did, so they tacitly approved of the current guns protected status....

So back to muskets? Not so much...

 

[suncowiam]

Yet no law or action was passed declaring new weaponry outside the scope of the second amendment. The law that was passed was directed at automatic weapons such as the Tommy gun which gave us the 1939 u.s. v. Miller decision. So, the problem with your theory is that the government had ample opportunity to change the definition but never did, so they tacitly approved of the current guns protected status....

So back to muskets? Not so much...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

That was not reference to tommy guns, at least not according to the link. It was in reference to shotguns.

"United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a Supreme Court case that involved a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Miller is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position."

AS BOTH SIDES CLAIM THAT IT SUPPORTS THEIR POSITION. Another vague verdict based on a vague amendment?

 

[Skwim]

Under 2 you have your answer.

These are law abiding citizens, who respect the law and the constitution, and would answer the call (supposedly), since they do after all, abide by the law...what is hard for you to understand?

Are you referring to

Militia
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.​

?

If so, just what law declares able-bodied male citizens are subject to call to military service? And how would this cover 80 year-old, doddering, gun-toting rednecks who own AK-47s?

Moreover, you don't know that all gun owners are law abiding citizens, who respect the law and the constitution, and would answer the call. In fact, I would argue just the opposite. Not all gun owners are law abiding citizens, who respect the law and the constitution, and would answer the call.

 

[McBell]

Are you referring to

Militia
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.​

?

If so, just what law declares able-bodied male citizens are subject to call to military service? And how would this cover 80 year-old, doddering, gun-toting rednecks who own AK-47s?

Moreover, you don't know that all gun owners are law abiding citizens, who respect the law and the constitution, and would answer the call. In fact, I would argue just the opposite. Not all gun owners are law abiding citizens, who respect the law and the constitution, and would answer the call.

In the USA it is called Selective Service

 

[Neo Deist]

The SCOTUS can and has overturned previous decisions they've made, so until they lose the power to do that, it is most definitely not a non-issue considering you're only one judges opinion away from not having a right to own a gun.

As it stands, it is the LAW, and thus a non-issue. If it becomes an issue at a later date, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. I don't concern myself with "what ifs."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Very exaggerated. That's one case of many and it isn't because the military is more advanced. Having more toys doesn't mean victory. You know there are more people than the military right? What about the French revolution? Didn't see the military succeed there. There's multiple cases where the population prevailed. If you send like 10 militia of course it's not going to work. And have you never heard of guerilla warfare? Look at how well The Vietnamese lasted against the US and they weren't as advanced as they were.

It comes down to many things, and many of those things, such as resources and training, are superior in the military. The French Revolution? The revolutionists, though many untrained, where still trained by people of the military who joined, organized militarily, and it was lead by generals such as Napoleon. The Viet Cong was using guerilla tactics, but they were a military, not a militia, and they had the advantage of fighting a poorly trained foreign military (thanks to the draft) that was in a very foreign land.

You are mistaken.

Then why was America not doing that well? The militias kept breaking the lines, failed to hold them, were largely poorly and under trained, and they couldn't even effectively retreat. Without the aid of the French military, America would have lost.

 

[esmith]

Then why was America not doing that well? The militias kept breaking the lines, failed to hold them, were largely poorly and under trained, and they couldn't even effectively retreat. Without the aid of the French military, America would have lost.

Because the politicians would not let the military prosecute the war. When the president chooses what target to be hit you know things are going to hell in a hand basket. In addition we could only intercept the migs when they were in the air but could not hit their airfields. In other words the military's hands were tied just like the rules put forth in Afghanistan.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because the politicians would not let the military prosecute the war. When the president chooses what target to be hit you know things are going to hell in a hand basket. In addition we could only intercept the migs when they were in the air but could not hit their airfields. In other words the military's hands were tied just like the rules put forth in Afghanistan.

We didn't have MIGs or even an American president during the Revolutionary war.