▲
16
0
▼

2nd Amendment Discussion


 invite response                
2018 Feb 17, 11:51am   285,122 views  1,444 comments

by CajunSteve   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

With all the talk about the school shootings, let's take a look at what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"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."

Couple things to note in there:

1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.

So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?

In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.

So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??

Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.



« First        Comments 146 - 185 of 1,444       Last »     Search these comments

146   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Feb 21, 1:30pm  

Goran_K says
Liberals: "Trump is literally Hitler!"

Also Liberals: "Trump needs to take away all of our guns!"


Brilliant! OrangeDouche the Billionaire Real Estate Tycoon Tyrant! Who will kill us all! Please take my guns away!
147   anonymous   2018 Feb 21, 1:33pm  

anon_8f378 says
Trumps needs to enact common sense gun control.


Please explain what is "common sense gun control"? This punch line, talking point is as bad as saying "ban assault weapons (which don't exist in fact).

anon_8f378 says
The citizens were in a militia. Which is what the 2nd Amendment protects. So strictly interpreting the 2nd Amendment, which is what you seem wont to do, would necessitate any gun owner need be a member of a militia.


Wow, there are no words...

By definition, all American citizens, if not employed by the government, are part of the current militia.

Just wow.
148   anonymous   2018 Feb 21, 2:09pm  

anon_cf6c6 says
By definition, all American citizens, if not employed by the government, are part of the current militia.


I'm sorry--by what definition? What's the name of the militia? Who is in charge of it? When do they meet?
151   Malcolm   2018 Feb 21, 3:31pm  

anon_8f378 says
I'm sorry--by what definition? What's the name of the militia? Who is in charge of it? When do they meet?


In theory, when there is a threat to the citizenship by a foreign invader, as a check if a tyrant were to seize power (not just someone you don't agree with), and most recently, in the case of domestic terrorism or insurrection.
152   fdhfoiehfeoi   2018 Feb 21, 3:40pm  

anon_8f378 says
How do you distinguish between "re-defining" and "determining intent"?


I like to go with the 10th amendment on that one.

anon_8f378 says
The citizens were in a militia


Not everyone who fought in The Revolution was in a militia. See my reference to no standing army. And again, "Farmer Brown", had a rifle that rivaled, and more often surpassed, the ones used by the military of England. Compare that to what a citizen can own today.
153   Malcolm   2018 Feb 21, 3:41pm  

There are some arguments that say the state National Guard units are the militia. I believe that the second amendment is simply recognizing a right to self protection. This was not controversial at the time, but the founding fathers were concerned that without gun ownership, citizens could become subjects.

There are too many instances of people thwarting home invasions and robberies to dismiss the need for self protection, even in modern stable times. My mother actually did draw a pistol on a wouldbe burglar when we all lived in Georgia. Lucky for him, the safety gave him a chance to get away. I do think cell phones have helped keep people safe. I see no need for public carrying of rifles, but if it were up to me, everyone who can legally own a gun should be able to carry a small concealed weapon with a stiff penalty for those who do so illegally.
154   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Feb 21, 4:30pm  

National Guard is not the militia. The militia can be called to defend the state or territory, and is not subject to deployment overseas.

The National Guard has been deployed overseas, and there was a SCOTUS case in the 80s that ruled against Minnesota (I think) that didn't want to release Guard units for service in Central America - "The Guard isn't the Militia"
155   Malcolm   2018 Feb 21, 4:33pm  

TwoScoopsPlissken says
"The Guard isn't the Militia"


Thanks for clarifying. It has been used as an argument by anti second amendment people. I will research this, but I like your counterpoint.
156   cynn   2018 Feb 21, 4:41pm  

Then what is the National Guard? We need a supermagnet that can harvest all the deadly, meaning deadly to people, guns and suck them all up! The deadly to irrelevant people guns, just hide under your bed.
157   ForcedTQ   2018 Feb 21, 4:49pm  

The second amendment doesn't guarantee shit. We have a natural right to bear arms of our choosing. What the second amendment does in fact do is limit the government from creating laws about "we the people" bearing arms. It is language, written down, to expressly limit what the federal government could limit. Remember, the federal government is the Union of States, not it's own entity. Talk to a constitutional lawyer about what the meaning is if you want to be enlightened. Also, the "militia" for the security of a "free State", is not talking about our current standing army. You have to think about what perspective they were writing this thing under. It's about the Federal government not taking absolute power over the sovereigns, the people. A militia of the peoples people, not the "Governement's People," essentially anyone willing to take up arms to fight to defend the constitution. That should happen when there is government over-reach, when they take authority over something they have been expressly denied, or has been given to another person/entity.
158   Malcolm   2018 Feb 21, 4:53pm  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time, complicating its meaning.[1]

During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were eligible for the militia.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[3] The year before the US Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the founders' vision of the militia.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to regulate this national military force,[6] leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[7][8]

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia
159   Malcolm   2018 Feb 21, 4:54pm  

I'm 46, am I not allowed in?
160   cynn   2018 Feb 21, 4:54pm  

You must be exhausted.
161   ForcedTQ   2018 Feb 21, 5:13pm  

The constitutional amendment doesn't reference a definition of militia, nor does it direct the federal representatives to control who is "in" the militia. Ref: Madison in Federalist 46, the people have the authority to band together for purposes of repelling tyranny. That's what the "A well regulated militia" part is all about, not a force of individuals directed by a government body. It doesn't matter that the people that are completely clueless about the constitution and are acting on emotions and mis-placed ideologies keep ramming the Ban Guns drivvel down our throats, it still doesn't change the bill of rights (Or limitations on Government as it should be properly viewed.) Nor do "Court opinions" get to change the constitution, they only get to strike down laws that do not follow the very basic laws of our land.
162   Booger   2018 Feb 21, 6:02pm  

How do the gun stats look if you exclude crimes committed by non-legal gun owners?
164   MrMagic   2018 Feb 21, 7:56pm  

anon_8f378 says


I'm sorry--by what definition?


I don't believe that will be found on CNN. Try a different source.

anon_8f378 says
Trumps needs to enact common sense gun control.


We're still waiting for your list of new "common sense gun laws". When will we see that list?
165   MrMagic   2018 Feb 21, 7:57pm  

Malcolm says
I'm 46, am I not allowed in?


Get Obama to forge your birth certificate too, and you'll be good to go!
166   anonymous   2018 Feb 21, 7:57pm  

anon_8f378 says
anon_cf6c6 says
By definition, all American citizens, if not employed by the government, are part of the current militia.


I'm sorry--by what definition? What's the name of the militia? Who is in charge of it? When do they meet?


How's this?

Malcolm says
Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia


Did that help?
167   FortWayne   2018 Feb 21, 8:06pm  

Right to bear arms shall not be infringed!
168   anonymous   2018 Feb 21, 8:22pm  

NuttBoxer says

I like to go with the 10th amendment on that one.


That doesn't really apply here--the 10th Amendment doesn't help derive the intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the other Amendments


NuttBoxer says
Not everyone who fought in The Revolution was in a militia. See my reference to no standing army. And again, "Farmer Brown", had a rifle that rivaled, and more often surpassed, the ones used by the military of England. Compare that to what a citizen can own today.


Of course--we weren't even a nation yet and didn't have a Constitution. So, it's not really relevant to interpreting the 2nd Amendment.
169   anonymous   2018 Feb 21, 8:22pm  

ForcedTQ says
Talk to a constitutional lawyer about what the meaning is if you want to be enlightened.


I'd suggest you do the same. Few agree with you.
170   ForcedTQ   2018 Feb 21, 8:33pm  

anon_3b28c says
ForcedTQ says
Talk to a constitutional lawyer about what the meaning is if you want to be enlightened.


I'd suggest you do the same. Few agree with you.


I have. Few, what, agree with me about what? Do you mean to imply that most disagree with me? Based on what? That just means that more actual constitutional education of society needs to occur so that this brainwashing bullshit the statist establishment assholes have implemented can be shit-canned once and for all.
171   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Feb 21, 8:46pm  

I'll take Gun Banners more seriously when they recognize that the amount of real "Gun Homicides" in the US are concentrated overwhelmingly within a minority group located in a handful of areas and approach the problem from "How can we maximize results with minimal impact on rights." instead of "Whelp, ban all guns."

If you really want to reduce Gun Violence, forget about Rifles of any kind, worry about Handguns.

Handguns, Inner City, Blacks. Those are the keys to the problem.

If we took out Blacks from the equation, our murder rate would be the same as Glasgow or Milan, even though we're armed to teeth and Euros are almost entirely disarmed.
172   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Feb 21, 9:11pm  

Between the 1920s and mid 1980s, school shootings were rare as hell. Even though you could order a Thompson Submachine Gun or M14 Carbine by mail order, no background check, no ID.

What changed?

In the 70s and 80s, Big Pharma and Bleeding Hearts worked together* to shut down Mental Health Facilities. Now there's almost no space available in what few Hospitals there are, and it's almost impossible for non-family members to forcibly incarcerate a violence-prone individual. So authorities just throw up their hands, because it's almost impossible to get an order, and then no space to get the dangerous individuals in there. Huge facilities for mental health incarceration, with more beds then than we have today with a much larger population, are literally turning into ruin, like King's Park Asylum, a massive 100 building facility that even had a rail spur back in the day, now totally abandoned.

So basically, our school shootings have a lot to do with an undue fear placing people under a fictional character, Nurse Ratched, and the lack of space to commit even when the very difficult orders are finally realized.

* Just like Big Business and Bleeding Hearts work together today to increase immigration and fight border security.
173   MisdemeanorRebel   2018 Feb 21, 9:29pm  

Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act in California (always leading the way) began the transfer of mental patients from large, well staffed facilities, to private little homes, usually in shitty neighborhoods, and often slumlord-driven enterprises. It also made it almost impossible to forcibly hospitalize a person without a long, drawn out process. State officials were instructed to let people out as soon as possible. Staffing was less professional (PhDs and MDs would only visit occasionally, the everyday work being done by less trained personnel; in a big facility staff had daily guidance from highly educated experts onsite).

They would dope 'em up for a few days, pronounce the mental crisis over, release them to the street.

Guess what happened with Cruz? Finally taken up, doped up for a short period, then turned loose.

That's why California, and other places, were bombarded with crazy people, getting truly underway in the 70s.
174   CBOEtrader   2018 Feb 21, 9:52pm  

CajunSteve says
Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right.


Hitler and Stalin would agree w you. The individual is on my there to serve the collective, amirite?
175   anonymous   2018 Feb 21, 10:05pm  

CajunSteve says
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.


CajunSteve says
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?


It definitely wasn't just single shot muskets, as there were other firearms available at that time that fired multiple rounds quickly.

24 barrel Pepperbox, circa 1790



11 shot Puckle gun, circa 1718

http://i1.wp.com/www.weapon-blog.com/wp-content/uplods/2014/01/1526380_749427561752396_2034081949_n.jpg?w=766

Any questions?
176   Goran_K   2018 Feb 22, 12:10am  

anon_cf6c6 says
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?


Dude, this was already decided at the Supreme Court over 10 years ago, and the SCOTUS rarely sees 2A cases. This "may" change in your lifetime, but it's unlikely. The SCOTUS decided that AR15's were arms and that's why gun ban happy states have not been able to outright ban AR15's, only "feature bans" like pistol grips, mag releases, etc.

Anytime some Psycho kills, the same "arm chair" lawyers try to relive Heller vs DC, and the same guys reach the opposite decision of the court, every time. Probably because they aren't thinking about the constitution but are thinking with their emotions.

Do some reading, research Heller vs DC and read the courts findings. You'll find your answer. It's also a good read.
177   CajunSteve   2018 Feb 22, 7:04am  

Goran_K says
Dude, this was already decided at the Supreme Court over 10 years ago, and the SCOTUS rarely sees 2A cases. This "may" change in your lifetime, but it's unlikely. The SCOTUS decided that AR15's were arms and that's why gun ban happy states have not been able to outright ban AR15's, only "feature bans" like pistol grips, mag releases, etc.


It was decided a lot more than 10 years ago, but I believe you're missing the point. I think everyone agrees that 2nd Amendment doesn't allow anyone to own any manner of arms that they would like (nuclear, rail gun, etc.) so the only question then is where to draw the line.


Goran_K says
Do some reading, research Heller vs DC and read the courts findings. You'll find your answer. It's also a good read.


I've read quite a bit actually, and posted a good history of Supreme Court decisions earlier in the thread. Not surprisingly, Supreme Court decisions vary quite a bit depending on the politics of the era and the makeup of the bench.
178   CajunSteve   2018 Feb 22, 7:04am  

CBOEtrader says
Hitler and Stalin would agree w you. The individual is on my there to serve the collective, amirite?


No, not correct. An individual's rights extend only as far as not to intrude on their neighbor's rights. Again--this is basic law. Think yelling Fire in a crowded theather.
179   FortWayne   2018 Feb 22, 7:37am  

CajunSteve says
CBOEtrader says
Hitler and Stalin would agree w you. The individual is on my there to serve the collective, amirite?


No, not correct. An individual's rights extend only as far as not to intrude on their neighbor's rights. Again--this is basic law. Think yelling Fire in a crowded theather.


That's not the same thing Steve. What your neighbor thinks is his rights often conflicts with your rights. Which is where freedoms come in. Some people think someone else having 2nd amendment rights intrudes on their safety... well guess what, it's my right to own guns.
180   Goran_K   2018 Feb 22, 7:59am  

CajunSteve says
I've read quite a bit actually, and posted a good history of Supreme Court decisions earlier in the thread.


Then you should read some more. Scalia and Thomas both answered the question you're asking quite clearly in Heller vs DC:

CajunSteve says
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons.


So like I said, do some reading and you'll find the answers to your question.
181   anonymous   2018 Feb 22, 8:13am  

FortWayne says
That's not the same thing Steve. What your neighbor thinks is his rights often conflicts with your rights. Which is where freedoms come in. Some people think someone else having 2nd amendment rights intrudes on their safety... well guess what, it's my right to own guns.


It's the same principle, it's just that different people have a different idea of what is an individual right and what intrudes upon one's neighbor. And that's fair. I think it's eminently reasonable to ask whether a person has the right to own a weapon designed exclusively for the ability to kill as many humans as possible in the quickest manner possible.

That's the overriding point here--the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee one the right to own any weapon or "arm". It doesn't guarantee the right to own any gun.
182   anonymous   2018 Feb 22, 8:13am  

Goran_K says
anon_cf6c6 says
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?


Dude, this was already decided at the Supreme Court over 10 years ago, and the SCOTUS rarely sees 2A cases. This "may" change in your lifetime, but it's unlikely. The SCOTUS decided that AR15's were arms and that's why gun ban happy states have not been able to outright ban AR15's, only "feature bans" like pistol grips, mag releases, etc.

Anytime some Psycho kills, the same "arm chair" lawyers try to relive Heller vs DC, and the same guys reach the opposite decision of the court, every time. Probably because they aren't thinking about the constitution but are thinking with their emotions.

Do some reading, research Heller vs DC and read the courts findings. You'll find your answer. It's also a good read


It's extremely inaccurate to say that Heller (a case about trigger locks in DC) made any finding as to AR15s whatsoever. A maxim of the court is that they only answer the question asked and nowhere in the facts or opinion is a reference to a AR15.

In fact, if you read the Scalia concurrence you will see he (a textualist) likely would come down against things other then ordinary "handguns & long guns of the time". Alas, he is dead now and his findings are only dicta and not the holding.
183   Goran_K   2018 Feb 22, 8:17am  

anon_8ca4d says
It's extremely inaccurate to say that Heller (a case about trigger locks in DC) made any finding as to AR15s whatsoever. A maxim of the court is that they only answer the question asked and nowhere in the facts or opinion is a reference to a AR15.

In fact, if you read the Scalia concurrence you will see he (a textualist) likely would come down against things other then ordinary "handguns & long guns of the time". Alas, he is dead now and his findings are only dicta and not the holding.


It's inaccurate because you don't understand the actual courts opinion or the case itself? It was NOT just about "trigger locks". You simply need to read more.

I didn't say it made any findings to AR15s, it made an opinion on commonly used arms. The AR15 is the MOST popular long gun in the United States. So yes, his opinion and the judgement in Heller vs DC has been used to rebuff any attempts to ban the AR15. That's why California gun grabbers are only attempting feature bans, a direct "AR15" ban would never stand constitutional scrutiny. Seriously, you don't think gun grabbers have been trying to find ways to ban the AR15 over the past DECADE? This is one of the biggest reasons the 2016 election was so important, the SCOTUS was up for grabs and the integrity of 2A. Once Ginsberg dies (and she will die before 2024), and Kennedy retires, Trump is going to stack the court even more heavily in favor of constitutionalist and reduce the power of leftist/socialist.

I didn't even care about Trump winning, I did care very much that Gorsuch got into the SCOTUS because of people who start threads like this.

As for Scalia being dead, and his findings "not holding", that's ridiculous and not worth the response I just typed to reference it.
184   anonymous   2018 Feb 22, 8:53am  

Goran - for clarification I was wrong when I said Scalia's concurrence. I meant Scalia's dicta or obiter dicta if you prefer. Cheers.
185   anonymous   2018 Feb 22, 8:54am  

Goran - you said:

"The SCOTUS decided AR15s were arms and that's why the gun ban happy states..."

It's only this part of post 188 that I objected to. If I wasn't clear on that, I apologize.

That said, please don't question what I know or don't know about this case or the 2nd. My former law partner who clerked for Justice Thomas was influential in shaping the procedural posture in the Heller post mortem. Plus I had the distinct pleasure of speaking to Scalia's son about his concurrence (again not the holding) when I finally bit the bullet and got my license to practice in the Supreme Court last fall.

« First        Comments 146 - 185 of 1,444       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste