Now is not the time to talk about gun control (5 Viewers)

[brandon]

T&P

Redirect Notice

 

[Denzien]

No shirt. Did you think you were baiting me into something?

I'm just having a conversation - what am I baiting you into? I'm trying to figure out what people think. Isn't that how people talk?

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed in the context of a well-regulated militia. So get your rocks off in the national guard.

The prefatory clause explains why the amendment exists, not its boundaries or limitations. The operative clause describes the right itself and makes no reference to a militia - nor does it establish limitations imposed on the citizen (such as membership in a militia).

This is logical because there was no standing army in the beginning, and no or little government ownership of weapons. We needed the population to be well armed so they could form a militia when necessary. For the defense of a frontier town encroaching on native lands, for the aforementioned squelching of an uprising, whatever. Privateers even owned cannon, which they used to assault enemy vessels during wartime.
Therefore, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for the general populace to own weapons. What good would it have been if we had to call up a militia and then purchase or forge new weapons? That doesn't make any sense unless the organizer had a large cache of weapons to issue.
(of course, the first gun control laws were rooted in racism - a violation of the 2nd Amendment? I think so.)

Even up to the Civil War, I believe civilians sometimes brought their own firearms into military service with them. If they did, they were likely of superior quality to whatever the military was issuing.

So if we want that to change, we need to change the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure why that's such a controversial statement. In the end, you're entitled to believe whatever you wish. Likewise for myself, of course.

 

[Denzien]

Regulation, done well

Dang, how could I miss that??

But seriously, it means proper 21st century governance of ownership of 21st century firearms and the conduct of the owners; and because this is part of the Constitution, it should be applied equally across the nation.

What does 21st century governance look like to you, what does it solve, and how is it part of the Constitution as it is today?

Things like "pry from my cold dead fingers", "not the time to talk about gun control" after a mass shooting, holding gun worship rallies at cities immediately after a mass shooting in that city, the idea that what keeps the U.S. free is guns, 2nd amendment checks, groups of people showing at Wendy's in 511 gear strapped with multiple guns, gun churches, the idea that the 2nd amendment is a God given right to own any and as many guns as you wish, and so forth and so on.

Oh god. I have to be honest, I hate most of those people. I actually kind of forgot they exist. They're like that Gnostic Atheist who's always running around challenging people's beliefs. Just leave people alone. They harm the conversation before it's ever started, but they think by confronting people with something they're uncomfortable with, they can help them see that they're not a threat. They do the opposite.
I don't think there are as many of those "ammosexuals" as there seem to be though - but I could just be sheltered. They're loud and in your face, so they seem like a bigger group. I have a lot of gun owning friends, and while they enjoy the shooting sports and are pro 2nd Amendment, they wouldn't be caught dead at a rally.

I don't really care about the bumper sticker brigade though. Everyone with an outspoken controversial opinion does that.

Finally, I personally think open carry is rather foolish ... why make yourself a target?

 

[Denzien]

I'm still trying to understand how and Amendment that clear deals with a "well regulated militia" and the "security of a free state", translates into and individual right to bear arms. It would be nice of the originalist would be able to explain that because it was never understood as such originally.

I'm honestly having a hard time reading it any other way, so I'm afraid I might be too biased now (I recall thinking differently when I was younger and more idealistic). Would you mind indulging me?

(ETA: I found this interesting paper that describes the "rise and demise" of the collective right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Of course, it plays to my biases, so if you have a competing paper you like, that would be an interesting read as well)

 

[SystemShock]

They're like that Gnostic Atheist who's always running around challenging people's beliefs.

Hmmmm .....

For the record, I am a gun owner.

My idea of regulation is not just haphazard laws banning this and that... but I believe that before we get there where I think we should be, we really need to move away from the mentality that guns are a god given right that makes the U.S. what the U.S. is.

As far as regulation is concerned, I'd start with gun licenses, registration, and mandatory gun education - be taught how to use and take care of a weapon, why you have the right to own and what responsibilities you have as a gun owner, learn it is not an extension of your penis...

 

[samiam5211]

I'm honestly having a hard time reading it any other way, so I'm afraid I might be too biased now (I recall thinking differently when I was younger and more idealistic). Would you mind indulging me?

(ETA: I found this interesting paper that describes the "rise and demise" of the collective right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Of course, it plays to my biases, so if you have a competing paper you like, that would be an interesting read as well)

How does regulation of nuclear arms not violate the 2nd amendment?

 

[DaveXA]

How does regulation of nuclear arms not violate the 2nd amendment?

I'm not sure how that's relevant since that didn't exist at the time the amendment was written. Same for any other WMDs or chemical weapons. It's a red herring.

 

[samiam5211]

I'm not sure how that's relevant since that didn't exist at the time the amendment was written. Same for any other WMDs or chemical weapons. It's a red herring.

There are tons of weapons that didn't exist at the time that people claim are protected by the 2nd amendment.

It is not a red herring, either the 2nd amendment prevents any restrictions on "arms", or it allows restrictions on "arms".

 

[DaveXA]

There are tons of weapons that didn't exist at the time that people claim are protected by the 2nd amendment.

It is not a red herring, either the 2nd amendment prevents any restrictions on "arms", or it allows restrictions on "arms".

Lol, no it doesn't. The total lack of nuance in many gun control discussions makes for predictably unproductive discussions.

 

[brandon]

Lol, no it doesn't. The total lack of nuance in many gun control discussions makes for predictably unproductive discussions.

But those are literally the only two options. Either, there's no restrictions allowed, or there's restrictions allowed.

AR-15s didn't exist when the second amendment was written.

 

[DaveXA]

But those are literally the only two options. Either, there's no restrictions allowed, or there's restrictions allowed.

AR-15s didn't exist when the second amendment was written.

I'm not talking about restrictions. The argument was made that people don't have a right to own a gun, which is different from restrictions. AR-15 is just another gun.

The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee unfettered access to guns. That's pretty much settled law. There's no basis for banning guns though.

 

[Denzien]

Hmmmm .....

Hey now ... we're literally in a gun control thread!

You are all willing participants to my proselytizing!

 

[SystemShock]

I'm not sure how that's relevant since that didn't exist at the time the amendment was written. Same for any other WMDs or chemical weapons. It's a red herring.

It may be an extreme example, but it is relevant. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. The first revolver that used a bullet rather than ball and powder was introduced mid-1800's. The semi-automatic rifle as we know it, late 1800's. And btw, in the late 1700s, a huge chunk of the population - I dare say the majority of the population - hunted their dinner.

And he's right about the 2nd amendment: either it allows for restrictions or it doesn't. There is no other alternative. And restrictions include bans; a ban is a restriction.

 

[SystemShock]

Hey now ... we're literally in a gun control thread!

You are all willing participants to my proselytizing!

And here I thought you cared so much about me that you gave me a back handed compliment. But you went and made it about yourself. I am hurtz.

 

[samiam5211]

I'm not talking about restrictions. The argument was made that people don't have a right to own a gun, which is different from restrictions. AR-15 is just another gun.

The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee unfettered access to guns. That's pretty much settled law. There's no basis for banning guns though.

The second amendment makes no reference to guns or even firearms. Either the government can ban guns without violating the second amendment, or they can't place any restrictions on any weapons at all without violating the second amendment.

The second amendment is antiquated and needs to be scrapped.

 

[DaveXA]

The second amendment makes no reference to guns or even firearms. Either the government can ban guns without violating the second amendment, or they can't place any restrictions on any weapons at all without violating the second amendment.

The second amendment is antiquated and needs to be scrapped.

Well good luck with that.

 

[Denzien]

My idea of regulation is not just haphazard laws banning this and that... but I believe that before we get there where I think we should be, we really need to move away from the mentality that guns are a god given right that makes the U.S. what the U.S. is.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

In the paper I linked in a different response, certain period quotes indicated that the basis for the 2nd Amendment arose from and merged two distinct concepts - that the people have an individual right to arms for self defense, and that militias were the preferred means of collective defense. It looks like they went 'round and 'round trying to be clever with how they worded the final version, and what we have is an affirmation that militias are the preferred means of collective defense, and the method used to ensure that was possible was to guarantee the individual right to arms. Whether that right projects from some unseen magic sky wizard or from an agreement between men that it is so, is up to the individual.

However, it seems the sentiment even then was not necessarily on the side of complete unfettered access to firearms - there was at least one (from the paper) who qualified that criminals and dangerous individuals should not retain the right. The only resistance I can recall for this sentiment stems from the mistrust that the definition for a dangerous individual could be changed to cover, say, a political enemy - and we all know that politicians have a habit of changing the rules to suit the party in power, so I can understand the fear at a basic level.

[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals

The Texas 'constitutional carry' law, for instance, indicates that unlicensed carry is not permitted for those that cannot lawfully purchase a firearm, so it's not unlimited - felons will not be allowed to carry firearms owing to the fact that they are not legally allowed to obtain them.

The right to self-defense is implicit in the right for citizens to own and carry weapons - otherwise, what purpose would they have? If they were meant to only be used within the context of a militia, then the right to the weapons would be constrained by that language, but it isn't.

Given this, I think it would be reasonable to argue that nuclear weapons (for instance) do not contribute to an individual's right to self-defense/defense of the person. If they are required for the defense of the state (for some reason), then the state should have permission to hold them unless it's agreed that they don't.


Banning a specific weapon seems like maybe it's fine in the presence of the 2nd Amendment so long as qualified citizens can still obtain firearms for the purposes of defense of self and state - but I would think that the rationale must be well-tested to ensure it's not completely arbitrary like the AWB in '94 or California's handgun whitelist (manufacturers must pay a tribute annually to keep their guns on the list).


Some of the interesting quotes from the paper:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

 

[Denzien]

How does regulation of nuclear arms not violate the 2nd amendment?

How would you obtain enough fissile material to test the law?
How would you protect yourself and others from the hazardous material of the weapon, lest you commit a crime by killing an innocent with the radiation?
Can your intended weapon be used for personal defense?
Ultimately, it's not even worth the trouble when a child killer 15 is so easily obtained.

But if you want a claymore mine to protect your property (not with a trip wire!), that's a Class 3 NFA item. You'll need to pay a $200 tax stamp and go through a lot of paperwork.
Want a rocket for your rocket launcher? That's a Class 3 NFA item. You'll need to pay a $200 tax stamp and go through a lot of paperwork.

 

[Denzien]

And here I thought you cared so much about me that you gave me a back handed compliment. But you went and made it about yourself. I am hurtz.

I'm so sorry, I didn't realize.