Second Amendment

[Revoltingest]

That speaks volumes ...

Your point?

Clearly, it's about respecting the individual's right to control (even end) one's own life.

 

[Skwim]

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."

Spoiler: Man with 62 penises

.​

 

[esmith]

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."

Maybe if the laws on the books were strictly enforced and the justice system was not so lenient something might be accomplished. Just one example:
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar/14/plea-deals-undermine-nevada-gun-laws/

 

[Noa]

When the amount of people America has imprisoned is as embarrassing as it currently is, I hardly think leniency is the core problem.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When the amount of people America has imprisoned is as embarrassing as it currently is, I hardly think leniency is the core problem.

That is an issue with drug laws, mandatory minimum sentencing, and private prisons, not guns. It's actually not that uncommon for drug offenders to get more time than violent offenders.

 

[Noa]

That is an issue with drug laws, mandatory minimum sentencing, and private prisons, not guns. It's actually not that uncommon for drug offenders to get more time than violent offenders.

It is also a broader problem that affects the gun issue. It is quite clear that our prison system is not a significant deterrent -- regardless of the crime committed. The gun issue needs to be approached through avenues other than archaic notions of punishment.

 

[esmith]

When the amount of people America has imprisoned is as embarrassing as it currently is, I hardly think leniency is the core problem.

did you even read the link? a few from the link....

RENO — After Elene Lamb was caught buying 32 handguns for a man wanted for murder in California — a man who would have failed a background check — she took a plea deal for one count of lying on her gun purchase form and was sentenced to five months' probation.
When convicted felon Darrell Metcalf was caught with an AK-47-type assault weapon and four other guns, he was charged with one count of illegal possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to six months in prison.

And when two felons, Michael Irving and John Smith, stole a safe holding 13 firearms from a California gun club in 2009, they faced one or two illegal possession charges. They were not charged with multiple counts for each of the guns or with theft. Smith is already free; Irving will be out of prison in December

The laws are on the book, maybe if they were enforced to the full extent of the law people would think twice before breaking them. So all I'm saying is let's give the laws a chance before the government enacts more that will also not be enforce or if enforced the criminal justice system makes a mockery out of them.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I think it's too late to simply get rid of guns (though ideally, it would be nice if private citizens and police never had guns to begin with.) Again, it's too late for that. There are too many guns out in circulation for the government to fairly take them all away. Certain people would lie and wouldn't give theirs up. Other people would give theirs up and would be financially screwed over (guns cost people money to obtain, so unless the government reimbursed everyone whose guns they took, it simply wouldn't be fair..)

Since we can't just take existing guns away, we need to do something else that will make people safer. I think requiring background checks, mental health evaluations, and training to all individuals buying guys could help. We don't let just anyone over 16 drive a car just because they are a citizen and are of legal age. People have to take a class and pass tests. It should be the same with guns. They are dangerous weapons and not everyone is responsible enough to have one.

 

[Curious George]

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"?

No, the constitution was not written for them. Nor was it written for slaves whose right to arms would have been routinely "infringed."

Yes, they are well regulated. They are law abiding citizens.

 

[Neo Deist]

First off, forget about your modern mindset, and put yourself in the position of an 18th century American citizen. They just broke away from the tyranny of an English monarch, they passed laws making it illegal for mandatory housing of soldiers in civilians' homes, and they ensured that the citizen soldiers (militia) would be armed. That is what a militia is...citizens that step up in the defense. There is a BIG difference between a regulated, federal army (which they had), and a militia comprised of citizens (which they also had...and they were non-uniformed). If you take the guns away from the citizens, then your militias would be unarmed since it was the citizens that made them up in the first place...and that does not bode well in times of defense.

Not to mention that SCOTUS has already made a decision on the issue, thus making it a non-issue.

 

[McBell]

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."

First step would be to actually enforce the current gun laws.
Next, any new laws need to such that actually assist with the goal of making it harder for people with bad intentions to obtain firearms.

Problem is that this is a political power play issue.
Laws are being proposed that serve no purpose other than to make the claim "see, we passed a law".

 

[tytlyf]

Criminals will always get guns whether they are banned or not.

Guns should be very difficult to obtain legally. People aren't criminals until their first crime. We're talking about finding people in their pre-criminal phase and making sure they don't get guns.

Then we have the issue of the people that are afraid of a tyrannical government. Those people shouldn't own guns due to mental illness.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Guns should be very difficult to obtain legally. People aren't criminals until their first crime. We're talking about finding people in their pre-criminal phase and making sure they don't get guns.

Then we have the issue of the people that are afraid of a tyrannical government. Those people shouldn't own guns due to mental illness.

I'll just assume you're joking.


Are you a telepath? How will you know for certain when someone will commit a crime? There are signs but it can be extremely difficult. Otherwise if it was easy people would prevent crimes more often than stopping it. You never heard of the black market? People will always find a way to obtain one. All you do is make it difficult for good people to obtain guns. Those lives could be in danger if they didn't have a gun. Those are lives you could have saved if you just let them defend themselves.


I'm trying to understand this and I seriously can't tell if you're joking or not. 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? Do you have any idea how many times a government has betrayed it's people? All governments have a potential to be corrupt. There aren't any exceptions.

 

[suncowiam]

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?

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.

 

[freethinker44]

Not to mention that SCOTUS has already made a decision on the issue, thus making it a non-issue.

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.

 

[Skwim]

No, the constitution was not written for them. Nor was it written for slaves whose right to arms would have been routinely "infringed."

Yes, they are well regulated. They are law abiding citizens.

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​

 

[Theweirdtophat]

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."

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.

 

[McBell]

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​

Given that definitions change over time, how were they defined back then?

 

[Skwim]

It means there should be a regulated militia and the people should have arms.

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

It says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

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

. Not to mention there's numerous quotes of the Founding Fathers saying the people should not be disarmed.

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

 

[Skwim]

Given that definitions change over time, how were they defined back then?

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.