General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSome questions for 2A gunnutters and Originalists
FOR THE GUNNUTTERS:
Shouldnt anybody possessing a gun have to be a member of a well regulated militia meaning, marching around, qualifying by test and physical proficiency of the weapon, be insured, be licensed, participate in frequently scheduled drills, and much more?
FOR THE ORIGINALISTS:
Shouldnt the weaponry covered be limited to flint-locks and muskets, since that is what the Founders knew?
Since the first thing the Founders did was to tack on ten amendments, doesnt this carve a gigantic hole in Originalism? Not to mention that we were taught/indoctrinated that the Constitution is so brilliant that it has only needed twenty-something amendments for it to keep up with anything that has changed since the beginning?
*** to a couple of other DUers for a point or two added to my own stuff.
dchill
(38,463 posts)...(except their fantasy of what is meant by the 2nd) to be any kind of legitimate part of the Constitution.
former9thward
(31,963 posts)None of the SC Justices.
dchill
(38,463 posts)former9thward
(31,963 posts)The only thing that is important. I will ask again, Who?
Frasier Balzov
(2,640 posts)Start with this case so you don't saw sawdust my friend!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
UTUSN
(70,671 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,724 posts)When discussing the Constitution in a blog or chat room...
All things not specifically forbidden must be allowed, IF that supports your premise.
All things not specifically allowed must be forbidden, IF that supports your premise.
???
SYFROYH
(34,165 posts)The peoples right to keep and bear arms is the pool of armed individual from which a militia can be drawn.
So, no, serving in a militia is not required.
The ability to show up with arms when called upon ensures the state can have a militia when needed.
brush
(53,759 posts)into units and regularly trained and on callnot every tom, dick and yahoo having military-grade weapons.
Sounds like the role our present-day National Guard fulfills.
SYFROYH
(34,165 posts)Basic training in the army is 10 weeks.
Ive heard it proposed that every young adult go through military training.
brush
(53,759 posts)on PBS in 1991.
IMO nothing else needs to be said.
SYFROYH
(34,165 posts)
(even on the conservative right) who dont want the people to keep and bear arms.
Its a bizarre thing to think, at least to me, that the Bill of Rights in every other enumerated case protects the people from government overreach but the second merely protects the state.
We know Burger was out of line when he creates the red herring of a guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires..
By the time he made his utterance there were noncontroversial Federal guns on the books.
brush
(53,759 posts)who wants a military-style assault weapon to be able to just go into a gun story and buy one like that killer in Uvalde did?
What ordinary person needs a semi-automatic assault weapon that can be easily converted to full automatic fire like the killer in Vegas did who took 58 lives and injuryed over 500?
Let's get real here. This stuff only happens in America because of easy access to such guns. It's not insanity, it's not violent video games. It's the availability of guns in America. It doesn't happen in other countries were there is not easy access.You're advocating for this?
SYFROYH
(34,165 posts)...to prevent or at least reduce mass shootings like the one in Uvalde.
48656c6c6f20
(7,638 posts)The last 244 years have proven that they can be regulated.
Insanity is doing stupid shit over and over and expecting things to work out. So you might Think regulation works, the facts prove you wrong.
Claire Oh Nette
(2,636 posts)We have a a voluntary military and 50 voluntary militias--the national guard.
Soldiers and Guardsmen don't get to take their weapons home with them at night. We don't require our service members to buy and maintain their own weapons, either. There are National Guard Armories all over the [lace, and there is an armory on every base.
If the military leadership won't allow trained, regulated, drilled, professional soldiers to take their ARs and MRAPs home with them, why does Joe Phatphuck think his 30 semi automatic rifles and 45 handguns and two bazookas in his living room are "safe" and that he's a "good guy with an arsenal?" (NB Joe can only shoot one assault rifle or two hand guns at any one time)
madville
(7,408 posts)At the time simply meant well equipped and had no bearing on organization or discipline.
brush
(53,759 posts)See Chief Justice Berger's 1991 take on the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment.
I think I'll go with Chief Justice Berger's opinion. And he was far from a crazy, lefty socialist.
madville
(7,408 posts)The only opinions that really matter are those of the current sitting justices.
brush
(53,759 posts)law makers to pass red flag and gun control laws.
What's yours? That's what we're discussing.
BusterMove
(11,996 posts)Going through training evolutions often enough to acquire the character of a well-regulated militia.
sanatanadharma
(3,694 posts)If we do not know what and where inventory of arms is available, we can't know if the arms are in operable condition with available ammo or any other possible qualifying or defining meaning of 'well regulated'.
Without knowing that Joe has an arsenal, how can the militia know that there are many more rifles available beyond the one Joe brought.
I personally love pushing back against gunsin-sanity via the 'well regulated" (can't be meaningless) words.
Triloon
(506 posts)means much more than just the ability to show up. No commander needs a bunch of undisciplined, trigger happy pig hunters in his musket line.
SYFROYH
(34,165 posts)who is it that has the authority to call up and then train this minute-man style militia? The governor? the local sheriff?
Ammon Bundy? Whose authority would you personally answer to muster up? I think all of this has already been long established in the National Guard.
I know this isn't a satisfying answer to those thinking in terms of some eventual armed resistance against Tyranny, but the Minute Man tactic is a guarantee of friendly fire casualties and rapid failure. Even the Confederacy had a better plan, although doomed to failure anyway.
If I ask myself whose call would I answer to muster up into a militia I really can't think of a single soul. Not for a lack of patriotism, but for a lack of trust in steely eyed bullshitters like Wayne LaPierre, the 3%ers, Oathkeepers and the others who want so badly to make me Well Regulated under their nonexistant authority.
You dont need to answer me, but I hope you consider who it is that you would trust to send you into combat against the US military.
Response to Triloon (Reply #26)
BusterMove This message was self-deleted by its author.
Claire Oh Nette
(2,636 posts)Lots of Civil War militias in different states called themselves Regulars.
They were regimented, and regularly drilled and trained and disciplined, therefore ready to serve when their country called. Don't forget the Slave Patrols and the Indian fighters along the "frontier" as justification for militias. They feared a standing army. Well, we HAVE a standing army and regular militias.
Well regulated comes before not be infringed.
They know the gun nutters would never pass a back ground check--bet there are plenty of DV, DUI, and other crimes listed. THey know they'd be red-flagged.
It's all about sales of guns and ammunitions--two of the very few things the US still manufactures here. Follow the money.
BusterMove
(11,996 posts)For training.
Its not some whimsical party of guys with guns
its an existing and effective military force capable of securing our liberties.
Claire Oh Nette
(2,636 posts)or as I like to call them, Gangs. Armed gangs of domestic terrorists.
In It to Win It
(8,228 posts)gives an individual right to own and bear arms.
I think the purpose is clearly defined in the amendment, to ensure a free state. I don't think it's a self-defense right (and that is where I think Scalia got it wrong). That is where I part with conservatives. I don't think it means you get the carry it around anywhere you please and become a vigilante.
I also agree with your view that actually serving in a militia is not required but I do think the purpose of the amendment is that if the state is in need of a militia, the state can call on you with your firearm. Therefore, i think it should function in more in the vein of selective service. If you purchase a firearm, you have to register with the state's militia, and be subject to conscription if the state needs it.
madville
(7,408 posts)Is just as silly as saying the 1st amendment only applies to paper and ink and not the internet or TV, or the 4th amendment only applies to ones house or person and not their car or smartphone.
brush
(53,759 posts)to fit present-day American and 21st century weapons technology, and where there is no possible reason for an ordinary, non-leo or military person to be able to buy a military-style assault weapon that can easily be converted to full automatic fire like the Vegas killer did who took 58 lives and injured 500?
Is it your position that the 1st amendment protects speech through mediums only available at the end of the 1700s? Or that the police can search your cell phone without reason or warrant, because the cell phone was not in existence when the 4th amendment was written?
brush
(53,759 posts)Try sticking with that.
Why would the second amendment be relegated to 1700s era technology when other amendments are not? If we somehow managed to successfully restrict amendments to what was available at the time they were written, we would be doing far more harm than good when those restrictions were applied to the other amendments.
brush
(53,759 posts)into the 21st century and its weapons technology. It's good to know you're not a strict constructionist and believe the Constitution should be a living document, not carved in stone and unchanging from how it was written in the 18th century.
Now, common sense upgrading of the 2A should certainly include clauses for red flagging/waiting period/age restrictions and banning of dangerous military weapons save for law enforcement and the military, don't you think?
Madville explained that the 2nd amendment, like all other amendments, covers technological advances that were not in existence at the time the amendments were written. For example, the government cannot infringe upon your freedom of speech on the internet even though the internet was not in existence when the 1st amendment was enacted. Nor can the police search your cell phone without a warrant even though cell phones were not in existence when the 4th amendment was enacted.
Similarly, the 2nd amendment does not apply to flintlock muskets and other 'arms' that were in existence when the 2nd amendment was enacted.
In reply to Madville, you wrote:
In your original reply that you wrote that Madville wanted to "upgrade" (your word) the 2nd amendment so that it covers 21st century technology such as the AR-15. But the 2nd amendment already protects the right to own semi-automatic weapons. It doesn't need to be "upgraded" (again, your word) to protect those weapons.
Then when it was further explained to you how amendments work, you changed how you were using the word "upgraded" and have now written the following:
Now, common sense upgrading of the 2A should certainly include clauses for red flagging/waiting period/age restrictions and banning of dangerous military weapons save for law enforcement and the military, don't you think?
This juxtaposition of how you originally used the word "upgraded" to dig at Madville, to how you're using it now, is stark.
I fully support common sense gun control measures such as universal background checks, mandatory safe storage laws, and enacting national minimum standards for concealed carry licenses and I've even created a thread right here to discuss how we can enact those measures within this current political climate). But don't attack posters for educating others about how amendments work.
brush
(53,759 posts)Common sense should tell you upgrade is just another word for modernize. You don't seem to get were saying more or less the same thing. Neither you or I are originalists. And God I hope you're also not for unfettered access to mass killing machines for every tom, dick and yahoo who turns 18.
You were aghast that Madville wanted to upgrade (now modernize) the second amendment to include AR-15s, and then minutes later you were suggesting upgrade actually means to restrict modern weapons.
My point with all that verbiage is that you ought not attack posters who were simply explaining how the constitution works to folks who think that the second amendment does not apply to modern technology, when it clearly does. The same way that the 1st amendment protects our speech from government censorship on modern technology, and the 4th amendment protects our modern technology from warrantless search and seizure.
brush
(53,759 posts)madville
(7,408 posts)Theres no need for anything to be rewritten or upgraded, its established opinion that all the amendments cover modern technology/devices, regardless of what was available or existed when they were written.
Claire Oh Nette
(2,636 posts)Yes.
Response to UTUSN (Original post)
hack89 This message was self-deleted by its author.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Obama, HRC and Bernie, for example, all believe it supports an individual right but strict regulation is allowed (and necessary). When Obama ran for President it was explicitly stated in the party platform that the 2A supports an individual right.
I am not an originals- I believe in dynamic constitution that changes with the times albeit slowly.
JHB
(37,158 posts)...when some pet conservative agenda item is on the line. When that happens, any "originalist" argument against goes out the window.
"Originalism" is a lofty-sounding bit of performance art, an intellectual fig leaf for overturning precedent they ideologically oppose.
In It to Win It
(8,228 posts)WarGamer
(12,425 posts)The Constitution offers ZERO protection for the individual RKBA.
Doesn't even mention it...
However in Federalist 46, Madison proudly proclaims the USA is a vastly armed country, unlike European countries that don't trust the citizenry with weapons.
Let's be honest... a ~250 year old founding document is too old.
Other modern countries have more modern founding documents that reflect modern life.
We need a 21st Century Constitution...
Anyone have an idea how to get one?
hack89
(39,171 posts)That's why it was added to the Constitution - to act as limit on government power. What other parts of the BOR are not individual rights?