What if the Second Amendment Were Repealed?

[Revoltingest]

Private owners are not Militia. The National Guard is our Militia, and it's pretty well regulated. All that it says for the people is the right to "keep and bear" arms. Not that they need to be functional.

That view doesn't reflect historical use of the term,
"militia"...
Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
Excerpted...
Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]
The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[30] clarified whom the militia consists of:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-

And even still, this solution - the removal of ammunition from public commerce - functions under the thread premise that the 2nd Amendment is repealed. Can't violate what is no longer there.

OK.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree - if by "politics" you mean lobbying.

Lobbying is just part of politics.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That view doesn't reflect historical use of the term

And? The very first line of that Wikipedia article is "The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time." So what is legally defensible as a "militia" is highly debatable, yet currently is... the National Guard. Of which every male 18 and older must register with selective services for potential conscription. And that militia - the National Guard - is well-regulated as a militia, not as individual gun owners.

Your section, the timeframe of 1787-89, notes clearly that Congress was granted the power to organize, arm, and discipline this militia. Do you know when the National Guard has it's origin? December 13, 1636. Defined as a Reserve force militia. So no, it is not talking about individuals who have a personal horde of guns. It's talking about the National Guard.

 

[Revoltingest]

And? The very first line of that Wikipedia article is "The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time." So what is legally defensible as a "militia" is highly debatable, yet currently is... the National Guard. Of which every male 18 and older must register with selective services for potential conscription. And that militia - the National Guard - is well-regulated as a militia, not as individual gun owners.

Your section, the timeframe of 1787-89, notes clearly that Congress was granted the power to organize, arm, and discipline this militia. Do you know when the National Guard has it's origin? December 13, 1636. Defined as a Reserve force militia. So no, it is not talking about individuals who have a personal horde of guns. It's talking about the National Guard.

We can argue about the current meaning of the
word "militia", but under the law, it would (should)
be about the intent used at the time the law was
written.
Otherwise it would open the doors to subverting
other rights, eg, the right to a free "press", which
is nominally about printed media, but is fundamentally
about distribution of speech, which now includes
electronic media. Intent matters more than quibbling
over word choice.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The only thing I don't agree with is the snitching. Incentivizing vigilantism often makes things worse and delivers a blow to communal trust that can be irreparable. At best it's Mccarthyism and choked with problems that place terrible and unfair and undue burdens on others, at worst it's a witch hunt like happened at Salem.

It's already a reality with abortion snitches. We don't need more.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I do believe that the meaning of the word "regulated" has changed. Back then a well regulated militia was just a well armed one. I have seen that argument made and evidence that supports it. To have a well regulated militia of that sort an armed civilian population was necessary.

EDIT: This is not a right wing source:

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf


"What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."

And probably well-practiced, as well as knowing exactly how and when to use it. I am sure they didn't mean Bubba shooting at the sky because he's drunk, or Guido shooting someone for trying to break into his car. Some of these gun freaks do not take ownership seriously.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

We can argue about the current meaning of the word "militia", but under the law, it would (should) be about the intent used at the time the law was written.

Well, then that cuts out a lot of stuff while keeping my same argument. Because see, the intent used at the time the law was written was in regards to the Militia, which was the National Guard. The definition of "arms" is then... muskets. Out goes all the pistols and high-caliber assault rifles.

Otherwise it would open the doors to subverting other rights, eg, the right to a free "press", which is nominally about printed media, but is fundamentally about distribution of speech, which now includes electronic media.

Well, this is very much wanting to have your cake and eat it too. So according to you, the 2A is about "militias" here meaning average citizens armed to the teeth with every manner of guns they feel warranted. Can't touch that, it's sacrosanct, and we must use that definition (incorrect though it is) of Militia. But the 1A.... That includes digital press because of course it should, never minding that the Forefathers wouldn't have known anything about digital media in the late 1700's.

So 2A - SET IN STONE, MILITIA MEANS AVERAGE JOE. 1A - Ehhh.... Right?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The stars align and Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all agree that gun ownership shall no longer be a constitutional right.

What would then happen to the millions of guns currently in possession of American civilians? Would they be retroactively confiscated (which would probably be impossible to enforce reliably), or would they be grandfathered in?

The slippery slope on this one is well oiled and steep.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Just stop selling ammo. There ya go.

Loki's balls I hate our cultural fetish with guns...

Part of why the developed world sees us as "ugly Americans."

 

[Sand Dancer]

If government were to ban private ownership
of ammunition, this would a 2nd Amendment
violation. After all, the right to own guns
rests upon the premise that they'd function.

I don't see the word "loaded" in the amendment. Hey, let's get them on a technicality.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Sounds like a communistic state. Paying people to turn in their neighbors? I changed my mind... it sounds more like the Nazis.

Is it also in regard to abortion?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, then that cuts out a lot of stuff while keeping my same argument. Because see, the intent used at the time the law was written was in regards to the Militia, which was the National Guard. The definition of "arms" is then... muskets. Out goes all the pistols and high-caliber assault rifles.

Here we differ....
You'd limit gun rights to technology of the day, ie, rifles (not just muskets).
I'd limit it to how the weapons functioned, ie, they were
militarily competitive small arms, capable of fighting invaders.

If we view rights as how they function, regardless of changes
in technology, then they'll apply to new technologies without
need to amend the Constitution. This is the originalist approach.

Well, this is very much wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

I prefer pie to cake.

So according to you, the 2A is about "militias" here meaning average citizens armed to the teeth with every manner of guns they feel warranted.

That is quite the imaginative inference.
Nay, I look to what militia members possessed
at the time, ie, militarily competitive small arms.

Can't touch that, it's sacrosanct, and we must use that definition (incorrect though it is) of Militia. But the 1A.... That includes digital press because of course it should, never minding that the Forefathers wouldn't have known anything about digital media in the late 1700's.

So 2A - SET IN STONE, MILITIA MEANS AVERAGE JOE. 1A - Ehhh.... Right?

Goodness gracious....bold print?
I'm being yelled at.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see the word "loaded" in the amendment. Hey, let's get them on a technicality.

And "guns" means these today...

 

[Audie]

I'm with @The Sum of Awe on this. We're in too deep.

I abhor guns, but making them illegal at this stage in the game would likely be largely problematic. They're already here, they already exist, and those that shouldn't have them are often not on record for having them, having obtained them illegally, or stolen them. You wouldn't be able to remove the guns from this population, and that would give them an upper hand.

I also imagine you'd have a shoot out in some regions, with a lot of normally decent folks being completely unwilling to give up this aspect of their culture(because it really does seem to be cultural for some).

Why abhor an inanimate object?

Your " normally decent" comment is
more than a little fraught. You may want to
review it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

And "guns" means these today...

I see those are loaded.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see those are loaded.

Ah, I once had that bulge that sticks up.
Now it sags down.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's already a reality with abortion snitches. We don't need more.

Yup. The only reason I voted against one of the gambling propositions here was it similarly would have allowed for the mass deputizing of citizens to help enforce the gambling laws. True, there are times to report actual crimes and assist with investigations when there are victims, but what we are seeing today is more a case of a bunch of goody two-shoed tattle tells needing to learn to mind their own business.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You'd limit gun rights to technology of the day, ie, rifles (not just muskets).

But it's okay to limit the definition of a Militia to terms used back in the day?

I'd limit it to how the weapons functioned, ie, they were militarily competitive small arms, capable of fighting invaders.

Perfectly fine to have. For the militia.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Ah, I once had that bulge that sticks up.
Now it sags down.

 

[JustGeorge]

Why abhor an inanimate object?

Your " normally decent" comment is
more than a little fraught. You may want to
review it.

Meh, its a dangerous item... I abhor the item(I think the world would be better if they all 'poofed' out of existence), though I hate the culture surrounding them as well.

As to the 'normally decent' comment, I'm not sure the problem with it. Mind explaining more?