The Bastardization of the Second Amendment

[metis]

Everyone was frantically buying them during the Obama years because of a ban that never happened, and the prices went through the roof.

Ya, they thought he was President Blackenstein who was going to unilaterally void the 2nd Amendment and even outlaw spit-wads.

 

[metis]

Sure, I was talking about the numbers of terrified morons out there arming themselves for the inevitable ban...

And what should we expect from the gunpowder-for-brains element that is so naive as to think that having 300,000,000 guns circulating in our society isn't enough and that having a lot of guns around makes us safer, thus blindly swallowing the NRA's propaganda.

 

[tytlyf]

Ya, they thought he was President Blackenstein who was going to unilaterally void the 2nd Amendment and even outlaw spit-wads.

They really believed that. Fear is a good selling tool.

Step 1 = Scare the crap out of people warning them the 2A will be abolished.
Step 2 = Scare the crap out of people warning that confiscation will happen
Step 3 = Scare the crap out of people warning that the government is buying up all the ammo and weapons
Step 4 = As a result, demand for weapons is at critical levels based on fear.
Step 5 = Raise prices on firearms to ridiculous levels to take advantage of demand. (price gouging)
Step 6 = Profit.

 

[esmith]

As usual I find myself coming close to posting something I shouldn't; therefore I have shut myself down on this thread.

 

[tytlyf]

As usual I find myself coming close to posting something I shouldn't; therefore I have shut myself down on this thread.

Ah, but you don't understand that what I said is the truth. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$. Did you get "Carry Guard" yet? lmao.

 

[metis]

They really believed that. Fear is a good selling tool.

As we saw Trump use effectively during the campaign: "they're coming to take our guns away... the Mexicans are taking our jobs away... the Muslims are going to require shari'a here... the left-wing media is controlling the country... the left is gonna outlaw the Pledge of Allegiance and destroy Christianity..." [paraphrased].

And look how many bought into that nonsense.

 

[tytlyf]

As we saw Trump use effectively during the campaign: "they're coming to take our guns away... the Mexicans are taking our jobs away... the Muslims are going to require shari'a here... the left-wing media is controlling the country... the left is gonna outlaw the Pledge of Allegiance and destroy Christianity..." [paraphrased].

And look how many bought into that nonsense.

There's a reason the GOP targets heartland Americans. The GOP doesn't have enough votes to win any elections with only the 1%'rs. So the mission is to fool people into why it's 'good' to support corporate policies. Trickle down baby! (give us the money and tax breaks because we give you jobs.....)

 

[Falvlun]

That is the entire problem. The founders had no concept of automatic weapons or even semi automatic pistols. They never had to deal with kids shooting up schools. They obviously framed it as, "because we need people armed for the militia, they have the right to own guns." Okay, but we have no regulated militia and the problems we face didn't even exist in their day.

I am not anti gun, but the whole originalist stance scares me. I know too many people who should not own an M16 and a sidearm.

It's one thing to have an academic discussion about the constitution in a vacuum. But we do not live in one. The law needs to reflect reality and not what some old guys came up with 230 years ago.

I agree it needs to reflect reality and that we can't be stuck in a 1800's mindframe. I also think that strict adherence to the words alone is a bit too rigid. However, the idea of "reinterpretating" the Constitution willy-nilly is problematic. As others argued, what if someone claims that the need for freedom of speech has passed? Or what if someone says that the current "Muslim threat" indicates that we need to revisit religious freedom?

That's why I appreciated @Revoltingest's information on the third path of framer's intention.

I think the inclusion of the militia clause does indicate that the 2nd Ammendment applied to regulated gun ownership and that it was meant as a safeguard for a free state. As that was the intention, I don't think that an actual militia is necessary, but I also don't think they envisioned a gun free-for-all. A well-regulated militia required people who could safely use and own guns. Thus, I think it reasonable that gun ownership be restricted to people who can be considered responsible gun owners. It also gives us a window into what sort of weopons were intended: basic firearms readily available to common people that could double as a weapon for an infantryman. While the tech can change, I don't think the general concept does.

That's why it does bother me when people claim that the militia clause is obsolete. It provides the reason, intent, and restrictions the framer's had in mind for the second amendment.

 

[Underhill]

So you are lumping all firearm owners under the idea that they are all terrified morons or just those of us who have a collection of firearms?
Using your logic(?) I could say that those that support the ideas of the alt-left are terrified morons since I would be using the same logic(?) you do.

No, I am not. I am lumping all those who ran out and bought arsenals based upon the nonsense about Obama taking all their guns.

 

[Mister Emu]

I would agree but it won't happen anytime soon. Everyone is too entrenched on the issue.

My concern for a dearth of amendments is not limited to this issue. The population has largely decided that amendments to the constitution are unnecessary in the face of judicial review. It is hard to argue with them when "penumbras formed by emanations" guarantee rights and warrant-less review of private communications passes 4th amendment muster.

 

[Underhill]

My concern for a dearth of amendments is not limited to this issue. The population has largely decided that amendments to the constitution are unnecessary in the face of judicial review. It is hard to argue with them when "penumbras formed by emanations" guarantee rights and warrant-less review of private communications passes 4th amendment muster.

You aren't alone in this. The constitution has become a sacred text and the founders it's prophets.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it possible that those that discussed and then put onto paper the idea reflected by the 2nd Amendment was considering two aspect behind that amendment?
One being that if at anytime a militia was needed that those that joined the militia would have access to their own weapons and be proficient in their use.
Two being that the a government, whether elected or not could restrict the ownership of firearms by the "common man" or confiscation of firearms and ammunition as the British attempted to do in the 1700's.

The amendment probably reflects many different ideas. It was the product of a negotiation by many people, all with different concerns and trying to achieve different objectives.

That being said, I think you're missing a third major idea behind the amendment: that allowing the possibility for the federal government to regulate away the ability of slave militias to hunt down escaping slaves and suppress slave revolts was seen by Southern slave owners as a threat to the institution of slavery.

 

[esmith]

So all of you that have a issue the way the SCOTUS has ruled on the 2nd Amendment, what would you like to see. Please be specific.

 

[LuisDantas]

So all of you that have a issue the way the SCOTUS has ruled on the 2nd Amendment, what would you like to see. Please be specific.

For one thing, it should take some significant justification for otherwise random civilians to be allowed to own and carry anything above a six-shooter. And that after attaining a license which must involve proper psychological evaluation.

As for the amendment itself, it seems very clear to me that it is hopelessly obsolete and should be declared as such.

 

[Skwim]

So all of you that have a issue the way the SCOTUS has ruled on the 2nd Amendment, what would you like to see. Please be specific.

Nice to see you've resurrected yourself for the thread. In any case, I'm going to reiterate what I posted in the OP, not only for you, but for the benefit of any others who might have missed the point.

What's the difference between:

"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."
And

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

I ask because "the people" today who choose to keep and bear arms are neither part of a well regulated militia nor any kind of a militia whatsoever, yet the SCOTUS ruling protects them.
​

In essence, there is no difference between the two versions. SCOTUS has deemed "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" to be irrelevant.

What happened is that the Amendment was essentially amended, not through Congressional approval and affirmation by 3/4 of the states, OR a Constitutional Convention, as spelled out in Article V of the Constitution, but by judicial fiat.



As for what I'd like to see, I'd like to see is significant gun control laws put in place. Take weapons like the AR-15, which can be easily modified into a fully automatic weapon, out of peoples hands--make them illegal to own. Limit the caliber of pistols, perhaps to those only capable of handling .380 ACP bullets. Repeal all right to carry concealed gun laws, and open-carry without a permit laws.

.
.

 

[esmith]

As for what I'd like to see, I'd like to see is significant gun control laws put in place. Take weapons like the AR-15, which can be easily modified into a fully automatic weapon, out of peoples hands--make them illegal to own. Limit the caliber of pistols, perhaps to those only capable of handling .380 ACP bullets. Repeal all right to carry concealed gun laws, and open-carry without a permit laws.

You have made a suggestion.
Can't a .380 ACP kill you almost as easy as say a 45ACP? I can place more .380ACP rounds in a magazine than I can a 45ACP as long as the magazine does not extend beyond the bottom of the grip. More rounds in a magazine more rounds I can put into your body.
What would be the benefit of limiting carrying a pistol or revolver openly vice concealed?

 

[Skwim]

You have made a suggestion.
Can't a .380 ACP kill you jalmost as easy as say a 45ACP? I can place more .380ACP rounds in a magazine than I can a 45ACP as long as the magazine does not extend beyond the bottom of the grip. More rounds in a magazine more rounds I can put into your body.

My concern with the power of a bullet has more to do with the survivability of an accidental gun shot than anything else.

What would be the benefit of limiting carrying a pistol or revolver openly vice concealed?

??

.

 

[esmith]

My concern with the power of a bullet has more to do with the survivability of an accidental gun shot than anything else.

.

OK, you are worried about survivability. You have a point, the only problem is you are advocating for open carry. Why would I want to carry a .380 if the survivability is better than say a .45. My purpose of carrying a weapon is my survivability. Therefore I would be better served carrying a .45ACP than a .380ACP would I not?

 

[Skwim]

OK, you are worried about survivability. You have a point, the only problem is you are advocating for open carry.

Only open carry with a permit. I realize some professions, such as armored car drivers may need to carry a hand weapon.

Why would I want to carry a .380 if the survivability is better than say a .45. My purpose of carrying a weapon is my survivability. Therefore I would be better served carrying a .45ACP than a .380ACP would I not?

Keep in mind I'm talking about accidental shootings. The .380ACP has an average penetrating power of 10% gel of 10.7 inches, whereas .45ACP averages 14.5 inches.

.

 

[esmith]

Only open carry with a permit. I realize some professions, such as armored car drivers may need to carry a hand weapon.

Keep in mind I'm talking about accidental shootings. The .380ACP has an average penetrating power of 10% gel of 10.7 inches, whereas .45ACP averages 14.5 inches.

.

Do not know where you got your data but suggest you use the following sources
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#380ACP
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#45ACP
Note: both of the above links are basically the same just different location of the data chart
home page of ballistic test is http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

Ask a LEO and they will tell you that a person that open carries are in more danger than a person carrying concealed. The reason is that the weapon is visible and if a "bad guy" wants a weapon it is in plain sight. Whereas concealed carry is just that concealed, in addition concealed carry does not alarm the local population like open carry does. The only time I would open carry is when I'm out in the boondocks but still prefer concealed carry.....weapon is more secure.