Second Amendment

The warped interpretation of this amendment is killing our country and the Constitution is written. Some of the same people on the court could’ve decided that the second amendment is to provide for state National Guard. Not everybody be a pistol packing fast gun

bladed weapons are regulated with little notice. Go figure.

So obviously it has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The gun humpers just love guns. They think it gives them the right to tell other people what to do and not to be told what to do

Particularly to address Chicago gang violence in the 1950s.

Some states then followed up.

There are quite a few states where they are still legal. Oregon for instance. But since they can't ship them over state lines, they aren't profitable to make.

In practice, the ban on switch blades isn't really enforced at all. There are easily acquired over the Internet, at gun shows or driving to a state where they are still legal.

Interestingly, Virginia just legalized switch blades beginning July 1st of 2022.

http://weaponlaws.wikidot.com/us-switchblade-laws

I can order a switchblade from multiple out of state sources.

Here's three:

https://www.onestopknifeshop.com

https://www.benchmade.com/

https://www.knifecenter.com/shop/automatic-knives

Although one of them requires you to affirm it's legal for you.

At least in Illinois, many non-lethal weapons are not protected. Go figure.

Repeal the second amendment? A lovely sentiment. Sort of like electing 67 progressive Democratic senators, 291 progressive Democratic house members, and 75 progressive Democratic state legislatures and governors. Unrealistic.

In a 100 years, the new generation will probably be still asking.

single-shot and took 2-3 minutes to reload, not to mention the first clause of the Second Amendment specified that the then-state-of-the-art, single-shot muskets were meant to be wielded by well-regulated militia, not by every tom, dick and 18-year-old, wannabe mass killer off the street.

You can bet your last money, honey, that the founders would not have written the Second Amendment as they did, if at all, if they had known that the future held 900 round-per-minute Uzis that could be had by any immature adolescent punk with a still-developing brain in his head and an itchy trigger finger and greenbacks in his pocket to buy one, or two, like the Uvalde killer did.

Doesn’t sound like a very smart business model in the long run

for decades. There are some losses from non-payers but way more profit from the high interest charged as most people don't pay off their balances immediately and get interest fees added to the original balance month after month after month.

They advertise something like have your adventure now and pay later. I could be wrong. It’s hard to imagine an 18-year-old without a job getting a credit card anyway. I guess they do, I don’t know

I wouldn’t be so certain they were so picky over who was armed and with what.

being able to form a militia to guard against foreign powers, and with good reason as the Revolutionary War still recent history and the War of 1812 was still to come as England was determined to take it's colonies back.

The concern over indigenous people was there but fear of England was front burner stuff.

And to be honest, the Second Amendment was also aimed at enslaved people who had the temerity to want their freedom and therefore go fugitive.

Native Americans of course became a higher fear/priority once excessively cruel Andrew Jackson became president and began the wholesale removal of Natives to the Indian territories/Oklahoma (the trail of tears).

Of course after the Civil War, it ramped up again in the southwest, west, plains and northwest during the post Civil War campaigns against Geronimo, Victorio, Sitting Bull, Chief Joseph and other warriors fighting existential battles for their homelands and lives against soldiers protecting treaty-breaking, white settlers.

That was a bloody war in the 1670s. Which was followed by the equally bloody French and Indian War.

The 2A was copied directly from the British Bill of Rights, as were many of the amendments in our BOR. It was simply part of what the founders meant when they said were fighting for their rights as Englishmen.

The 2A had nothing to do with slavery. There was no Federal issue involved. There is also no mention of that in the contemporary accounts of the day.

of uprisings of enslaved people.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment

"On the crafting of the Second Amendment at the Constitutional Convention

It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And ... James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. ... The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings."

In fact, modern police forces have their roots in the
slave patrols—also known as patrollers, patterrollers, pattyrollers or paddy rollers—were organized groups of armed men who monitored and enforced enslaved peoples' movements, and hunted fugitives.

No wonder there's so much killing of Black people by police. It's in their DNA.

They fought loudly and publicly over the 3/5 compromise yet were silent over the 2A? Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

One historian with one book doesn’t make it true.

the Second Amendment is no secret to historians. It's pretty well known that southern reps to the Constitutional Convention voiced concerns about enslaved revolts and runaways, which is why I mentioned it.

I'm surprise you weren't aware of this.

The fact that modern police departments have their roots in slave patrols/pattyrollers is not as well known.

And how the founders copied many of them, including the 2A, directly into our BOR?

The anti-vaxers have taught me what a useless and intellectually lazy phrase " Do your research" really is. No - how about you engage in a meaningful discussion instead of gas lighting me?

The right to bear arms was recognized as a civil right 90 years before the American Revolution. And it had nothing to to with slavery.

Do you care to talk about it or is your mind made up.

George Mason voiced at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and several graphs from the link which also describe how James Madison himself crafted it...



I don't know what else to tell as you seem to think that language from 90 years before the convention was governing what they were carving out in 1787.

Not so.

This brings me to end of my correspondence with you as I see no point in any further discussion.

Let's have a moonshot type program to invent a time machine.

When we have one, we will go back in time and show the founding fathers what a mess their naivete created.

Surely if they knew where things stood today, they would have done things differently.

I know it sounds like a long shot but I figure it has at least as good of a chance of coming true as the idea of changing the 2nd Amendment through political means.

The good news about my plan is that it doesn't matter how long it takes

Sorry to be flippant but as long as we are talking about things that can't happen...

I wrote this to see where people stand.

I realize I was being a bit of a jackass so I am glad it didn't land too harshly.

For the record, your idea is certainly desirable. And if I could snap my fingers and make it happen I certainly would. I just don't see any political path to that. Considering how hard we have to fight for simple things like simple and obvious things like background checks.

At this point, I think political energy is better spent in licensing and registration because I don't see bans happening. If anything, it just feeds into the narrative and makes it harder to convince people that registrations are necessary. Every time someone mentions taking guns away, they just buy more.

Just my two cents.

Not right now, though. Right now, that would be impossible. If that is the goal, then the answer is to create the conditions where such a new amendment would be possible. That would require 67 votes in the Senate, a similar majority in the House, and Democratic majorities in the state legislatures of way more states than now have such majorities.

If we want to do that, we're going to have to elect more Democrats. Many more. That's not going to happen all at once. It will require strong Democratic turnouts in EVERY election, not just in presidential election years.

If we have long-term goals, we can only achieve them through consistent large turnouts of Democrats.

That's the only way. Let's work on that, shall we?

AWBs, registration, magazine size limits, storage requirements etc are all perfectly constitutional.

States and the Federal government could pass many Constitutional restrictions right now if they wanted to, but most don’t.

Repealing the second amendment doesn’t make guns illegal, just like overturning Roe v. Wade itself doesn’t make abortion illegal per se, it opens the door for more restrictive laws to be enacted (new legislation or existing trigger laws).

I love it, now, all you have to do is convince the Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, which, BTW, opens up all the Amendments to change/repeal, then convince 2/3rds of the Congress critters to vote to repeal/change the 2A, then submit it to the states for ratification, which would require 3/4ths voting Yes.

Easy Peasy.

I swear to god, this fucking place sometimes.

I leave that to far more competent people than me.

Same shit, different day.

I was simply seeing where people stand. Thanks for expressing your stance.

I'm merely pointing out, in my own way, how unattainable your goal is at this time in history and for the future, if this country survives intact.

gun control, don't we?
You think any of Those People will change... no matter the body count?

is to compromise with lawful gun owners—a compromise to repeal and replace the 2nd amendment that both protects lawful gun owners and their right to self defense and their right to hunt, while also modernizing what is and is not lawful, who can own weapons, and when they can own them.

We could sell this to gun owners by removing some of the unpopular regulations (such as the cumbersome process to obtain a sound suppressor or a short barreled rifle even when it is functionally identical to an unregulated “pistol with a brace”) and by cleaning up the ambiguous language of the 2nd amendment. While it’s true that this SCOTUS recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd amendment is ambiguous enough that a future SCOTUS might not recognize that right.

By cleaning up and modernizing the language we could both protect lawful gun owners from future SCOTUS changes, and protect innocent Americans by denying easy access to firearms for criminals.

If anything you mentioned was possible with the desire to do it, it would certainly have happened by now. At this time, there isn’t much on any subject that will pass this Congress, as we are currently in a fight for the existence of our current form government.

That’s just the reality of it, change or repeal won’t get through Congress and wouldn’t get ratified by the States for decades at least.

Next route would be to get the Supreme Court to overturn the current interpretation that it’s an individual right, again, not happening with the current court or even a 5-4 court if say Thomas gets replaced in the coming years.

Stuck with it for the foreseeable future.

For a country and society founded in violence from firearms, expanded by the violence from firearms, where ever single day the government exerts its authority by the threat of violence from firearms to compel compliance to laws and authority, the idea of reducing the threat of violence from firearms means total upheaval, reordering and restructuring of American culture, mindset and way of life.

The unspoken, unlegislated ideas behind the 2nd Amendment provide a means whereby the citizens would have a way of keeping in check the exertion or overreach of authority from oppressive future governments and leaders.

Personally, I think that the USA will not reach a point where society decides and chooses to reduce the threat of violence from firearms.

Maybe in some far off future, humanity will reach a point where it no longer requires the threat of violence from firearms from the people or the governments over them to reach an accord, or agreement that benefits both. Just not in my remaining lifetime.

Is to contact your state government reps to call for a Convention of the States.

Last I saw only 18 state governments were controlled by democrats.

This is what's left. The last peaceful option. Plus it all depends on how a convention is worked. Article V says what it needs in a convention, just not how it's run or how its votes are tabulated.

So it remains.

People who fought for civil rights endured beatings, harassment, prison and some even lost their lives.

We can still have meaningful gun control legislation with an individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

And conversely, private gun ownership could still be legal at the federal and state levels, even if a 2nd Amendment didn't exist.

I see no future where the 2nd Amendment is amended.

Now what?

I don't think what we have now is related to the intent of the Founders.

where are all the laws that specifically restricted gun ownership to militia service? Where is the evidence of people losing their guns because they were not part of the militia?

You say that interpreting the 2A as an individual right is very new yet our history seems to argue that it has always been that way.

No probable cause needed.

If caught with one and can't prove legal ownership or be in possession while committinga crime, get a mandatory 5 years in jail with no exceptions.

“A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give." - Ida B. Wells, 1892

It's the sort of suggestion that actually undermines gun control. One reason is that includes the insensitive term "toxic masculinity" that rightly or wrongly has come to represent anti-male bigotry. A better term is "false masculinity." That applies at least to the AR-15. But generally, normal gun ownership should be legal.