Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[TreasonousBastard]

1. The Supremes seem to have made that part of it irrelevant...

so we're stuck with guns as the ultimate aphrodisiac.

[riversedge]

8. The Congress COULD override that decision.

wishful thinking in this day and age.

[Snobblevitch]

20. Huh?

Exactly HOW would that work? Separation of powers is in the constitution. Congress passes laws. The judicial branch interprets laws.

[riversedge]

29. Congress could pass a new law on this issue. If objected to by some it goes to court and

eventually the SC for its interpretation.

For example--the SC interpreted a law related in the Citizens United case. Now many in Congress want to write a new law to overturn that decision.

[Travis_0004]

51. No

The second amendment is in the bill of rights.

The Supreme court has determined that the second amendment protects individual rights. Congress can not pass a law to overturn that right. They could repeal the second amendment, but lets be honest, getting the votes for that is impossible.

Citizens United was not written in the bill of rights, so congress can pass a new law regarding that anytime, and the supreme court would allow it.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. You need to research the difference between 'a law' and an enumerated civil right via the BoR.

[SecularMotion]

18. Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

[MillennialDem]

67. The supremes can overrule themselves. Most important reason to elect whoever the democratic nominee

is.

I'm a Bernie supporter, but I will vote for Hillary Clinton or whoever the democrats nominate if not him.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. Potentially, but stare decisis suggests they wouldn't, Miller, Heller, MacDonald, etc.

[MillennialDem]

126. Suggests does not mean will or will not. Just likely. Not about gun rights but Lawrence v Texas over

ruled Bowers v Hardwick.

I know that there are only 3 ways we will get meaningful gun reform:

1. The Supreme Court gets flipped from 5-4 against us to 5-4 or 6-3 in our favor. Even if this does not do it, it's important to prevent blocking #2 and #3 below, along with a bunch of other reasons. The Roberts and Rehnquist courts have been damaging this country almost as long as I've been alive.

2. A sea change when people finally have enough. You think Newtown would have done it, but I guess not. Then again sea changes can be quite sudden and from seemingly unimportant events. Maybe when some sick fuck POV murders children live. IDK.

3. Long and gradual. The gun culture is slowly but steadily dying, just like the republican party. It's going to take even longer though.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. Meaningful gun reform could be accomplished many ways, without infringing on the 2nd amendment.

I'm an advocate of opening the NFA registry, and extending it to apply to all semi-auto weapons.

That's legal. The NFA registry has survived many constitutional challenges. Classing fully automatic weapons as NFA firearms is legal. There's no inherent barrier, not even 'common use' to prevent semi-auto from being classed as NFA as well.

That even gets us registration and UBC for all semi-auto weapons.

Just needs public support.

[samsingh]

123. only the idiot repug 5 supremes have done that. the decision can be changed by smarter

supremes with more integrity in the future.

[AtheistCrusader]

129. Repugs say the same thing about Roe vs. Wade.

Careful what you wish for.

[MillennialDem]

148. And I have no doubt they'd change Roe v Wade if they replaced a liberal with a

conservative or Kennedy by a hardliner.

[AtheistCrusader]

150. They'd challenge it. A challenge would be raised the same day. You bet.

I don't think they'd succeed though.

[samsingh]

202. and if we have more repugs on the bench they will replace roe vs wade

to the present bunch corporations are people too.

[tabasco]

157. The Supreme Court also has held that slaves must be returned to their masters.

Times change and so do the rules. Many people don't understand the importance of the Supreme Court. That's why it's so frustrating to see people say they will stay home rather than vote for a Democratic candidate, whom they consider "the lesser of two evils." Republicans in the White House results in justices like Scalia and Thomas making decisions that affect our daily lives.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Regulated is not the same as restricted -- which is all this is really about.

Because the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is also in black and white yet remains ignored.

Not at these dystopian levels. Chicago: 250+ gun murders so far. Toronto: 17.

Yet, Chicago is the gun controllers Utopia for laws and regulations that harass law-abiding gun owners. Remember, it was Chicago that was going to send Otis McDonald to jail for owning a gun that gave us Chicago v McDonald.

[gcomeau]

21. As has been pointed out countless times...

Gun control at a city or state level when said city or state has no border control is effectively impossible. When there are zero barriers to anyone simply strolling on in from somewhere an hours drive away where purchasing guns is insanely easy there's really nothing that can be done.

It *must* happen at a national level. All other attempts are ultimately pointless and futile.

[hughee99]

69. Thankfully our federal borders are secure and there's not

Something like a half billion guns in the country already, so I'm sure gun control at the federal level would fix everything.

[gcomeau]

94. Ask Australia.

Would it happen instantaneously? No.

Would things steadily improve as weapons were removed from circulation in the general public? YES.

[uponit7771]

104. They know this about Australia and profer the same tired ass'd arguments!!!

[GummyBearz]

116. Australia's borders are a little more secure than ours

Of course we shouldn't talk about securing our boarders, it may be offensive. So we come to a conundrum... gun laws+secure border to keep other's guns out? Or no gun laws and let the boarder go on as is...

[Go Vols]

198. Australia's Largest Gunsmith & Store

[AtheistCrusader]

121. Where in the US is purchasing guns insanely easy?

Personally, I'm in favor of UBC's, because it eliminates this canard, but even still, you have to pass a background check just to pick up and look at a gun in my state, at a gun show.

[Lizzie Poppet]

131. We just instituted universal background checks here in Oregon.

They have to be conducted by an FFL holder (for a fee), so I suspect compliance for private sales and transfers will be spotty, but I'm still pleased with my state for doing this.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. I think it's a good thing. I wholeheartedly encourage Washington to follow suit.

You guys beat us to weed, too.

[Lizzie Poppet]

143. Other way 'round on recreational weed.

We just had recreational weed "go legal" in July (and there are still no stores...that's coming in October). I think we were ahead of ya on medical, though.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. You are correct, medical not recreational.

Sadly, our recreational part is a boondoggle that is destroying the medical aspect.

[gcomeau]

134. By the standards of most of the rest of the civilized world?

How about the majority of the country?


If we want an example that applies specifically the the Chicago situation: Indiana. Less than an hour drive from Chicago and you're in Gary.

Which is why, this:

http://wgntv.com/2014/09/03/indiana-guns-favorite-of-chicago-gangbangers/

[AtheistCrusader]

139. That's a 10 year $100,000 federal felony.

"It’s so easy here, the dealers joked with our producer and photographer about it. One bragging, “We deal with Illinois residents all the time and we invite them to come to Indiana.”

Another dealer said, “As long as you’re an Indiana resident and you don’t have any trouble, I just write down your name and address so if they come knocking on my door, and say this gun was used in a robbery, well this is who I sold it to and then you got to explain what you did.”"

Knowingly participating in that shit is already a federal felony.
You want to... regulate it... harder?

Ok, snark aside, I DO support UBC's. That would cork that avenue.

[gcomeau]

152. An almost impossible to effectively enforce one.

As exemplified by the quote from the Chicago Police Superintendent at the end of that article.

Since guns continue to flow across the border he’s had to switch tactics. He’s now working harder to partner with the feds to catch guns moving state to state. When we asked if it’s working, McCarthy said we’re up against it like a screen door on a submarine.

You just CAN'T effectively regulate the influx of guns into a city or state that has *no border controls* between it and another city or state where acquiring guns is child's play. It doesn't work. You need to have sane national level control.

Ok, snark aside, I DO support UBC's. That would cork that avenue.

It would help... some... the problem being how difficult to enforce UBCs are for private purchases.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. I can't help you here.

If a law exists with extreme penalties, and its not enforced by anyone...

I'd call it in. I'd report people. I hope you would too. If nobody will enforce it, then it doesn't matter WHAT laws you want to add on top.

[gcomeau]

164. Nobody said "it's not enforced".

I said CAN'T BE enforced.

The cops try. And sure they catch a person here and there. But the border is OPEN. Anybody can just drive right in with a car loaded with guns and no cop is going to stop them unless they have telepathy or x-ray vision or something when that car happens to go by them.

Saying "call it in" isn't accomplishing anything. Call what in?

"Hello police? I see a car crossing the state border. Someone might want to check it for guns... umm... just because I guess? Oh look! There's another one crossing the border! And another one! And there's a truck!"


How exactly do you think that would work?

[AtheistCrusader]

171. It can be enforced.

It IS enforced at gun shows in my state. Think it's not? You can't tell who is a cop or not.

Our gun shows are crawling with uniformed, plain clothes, off duty, and retired law enforcement. Why aren't Indiana's?

[gcomeau]

184. No, it can't.

You aren't really under the impression that all those gun purchases only happen at gun shows are you?


And even for the ones that do, and even if the place WAS crawling with plainclothes, how many of those plainclothes have telepathy? Because that's what it would take to tell if the person buying those guns intended to go transport it into Illinois after they buy it. That or putting a tail on every person to leave the show and following them around for days or weeks to see where they go with it. Just how large a budget would you like to give the police department to deal with this one single issue? We could turn them into a clone of the NSA I suppose... giant surveillance octopus of an agency...


Barring that, no. Not effectively enforceable.

[AtheistCrusader]

187. Full registration (UBC) is the only tool to combat that.

Last owner goes to jail when you have UBC in force, every time a gun is recovered in connection to a crime.

Not many people are willing to move forward unlawfully. They move a tremendous amount and are able to do so for long periods of time before getting caught.

UBC makes that nearly impossible.

[gcomeau]

190. Which, like I said, would help *some*.

Last owner goes to jail when you have UBC in force, every time a gun is recovered in connection to a crime.

Unfortunately many criminals, or people who have no issues selling to criminals, tend to have a grasp of the concept of filing off serial numbers. So it's effectiveness has limits as long as the legal and societal culture still promote the saturation of the general population in firearms. As long as that is the case there are far too many avenues available to acquire a gun.



(And that's not even getting into the tiny little detail that a lot of these people *aren't* criminals when they buy the gun. That bit comes later often enough)

[AtheistCrusader]

193. Being in simple possession of a firearm with no serial number is a felony.

And there are ways to 'raise' the serial number even after it's been filed off.

Basically nobody does that anymore.
Enforcement would change attitudes. The fact the people at that show would be so blaise about talking about how they just don't care, 'don't tell me I know nothing', tells me its so not enforced at all, that the culture of gun owners has been altered by the non-enforcement.

That could be fixed pretty quick.

[gcomeau]

195. Which I'm sure greatly concerns people already intending to commit felonies with said guns...

And there are ways to 'raise' the serial number even after it's been filed off.

...dependent on how thorough the removal job was.

Basically nobody does that anymore.

Due to lack of need to perhaps... which would likely change when...

Enforcement would change attitudes.

Yes. Yes it would.

And, to repeat, it would help *some*.

But only some. In any country where the presence of guns is so endemic there will always, always, always be far too many avenues available for anyone to get their hands on a weapon when they shouldn't be having one. And we're not just talking about hardened criminals and gang members. Applies equally to any random idiot with anger management or impulse control issues. Have any idea how many homicides in the US would have been assaults in other nations but ended up with a corpse on the ground because a gun happened to be at hand when someone lost their temper? UBC isn't going to do squat about that.

[AtheistCrusader]

206. USDoJ estimates the lawful use of firearms in self defense against those robberies and assaults at

anywhere from 60k-100k/year depending on year.

It's a little mind-boggling to me that you are so incredibly uninterested in enforcement of current laws designed to stem the flow of guns from legal to grey/black markets.

Odd.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

216. As has been pointed out countless times --

How can a gun Utopia have a higher gun violence rate than the gun liberal areas where the guns originate?

[gcomeau]

231. Are you serious?

Because NOWHERE in the US is a "Gun Utopia" or anything remotely like it.

Regional differences in gun control laws are completely fucking irrelevant when there are no border controls between the regions. That is the thing that was *just* pointed out. What part of this is eluding your comprehension?

So why is there a lot of crime in Chicago? Because there are gangs there for one thing. And the fact that Chicago is three times the size of the biggest city in any neighboring state tends to contribute . Criminal gangs tends to operate where there's money, and guess where the money is concentrated?

And why do those gangs have lots of access to firearms? BECAUSE FREAKING INDIANA FOR ONE... THAT'S WHY.

[safeinOhio]

28. Shall not be infringed

arms=atom bombs, switch blades and brass knuckles, tanks, mortars and heat seeking missiles.

Seems it does not mean what it says.

[hack89]

32. There is no legal case law that supports your definition of arms

it is not what the layman thinks that is relevant but rather what definition the legal system uses.

[thesquanderer]

62. So where *should* we draw the line?

Maybe we draw the line at arms that existed in 1789 when the Constitution was adopted?

[hack89]

66. We drew the line in 1934 with the National Firearms Act.

as for your idea, would you accept that same standard for every amendment? Or only the second?

[GGJohn]

68. Maybe we draw the line at media that existed in 1789.

Hand cranked printing presses and word of mouth?

See how ridiculous that sounds?

[MillennialDem]

72. Well then why are we restricting arms to what was essentially all that was available in

1880? And even then some restrictions (knives are more regulated than guns, at least when carried in public)

The current state of the second amendment is more akin to "you have freedom of the press, you have fox news" right now. It's a hodgepodge of shit, not uninfringed arms access.

[hack89]

77. We drew the line in 1934 with the National Firearms Act.

that is why automatic weapons, for example, are strictly regulated.

[MillennialDem]

81. Again you're talking about firearms. I'm talking about arms.

[hack89]

82. Knives and swords are not an issue that needs to be addressed.

they are not strictly regulated compared to guns not do they need to be.

[MillennialDem]

86. Bullshit they aren't. Switchblades and butterfly knives are illegal (nearly) everywhere. Fixed blade

knives are often entirely illegal and folding knives over a certain length are also often entirely illegal.

In most jurisdictions carrying a sword on the street would get you thrown in the loony bin unless it was at a renaissance fair.

And arms includes more than just firearms and knives.

[hack89]

108. Background checks? Waiting periods?

When there is a national movement to regulate knives like guns is when I will be concerned.

[MillennialDem]

118. It's possible to regulate guns, impossible to regulate knives. Plus everyone owns several knives,

whether they know it or not. And even if you managed remove and/or regulate all cutlery and all tools that can double as a knife like scissors or screwdrivers, anyone can home make a knife. It doesn't even require any tools (though they make the job easier) - just a hard piece of metal, plastic, glass, or rock that can sharpened by grinding against something to a point.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. The UK has regulated guns, and is attempting to regulate knives.

I wouldn't say 'impossible' if I were you.

[MillennialDem]

145. Sure you can bust people who are carrying a knife, but you can't really get rid of

knives in the same way you could get rid of guns.

Just for a thought experiment assume the sale of guns and ammo were banned and a lot of them were recovered (like the Australia gun ban). You'd have a few illegal "dealers" and a few people building guns at home, but they would be quite easy to catch. Just like if you go into a department store and buy a lot of pressure cookers or into a hardware store and buy lots of pieces of pipe is going to raise a lot of red flags, a lot of the stuff you might buy to make a homemade gun is going to raise red flags.

With knives there aren't going to be red flags. I can go break a piece of metal off a chain link fence or break a booze bottle and in a couple hours I'll have a knife.

[AtheistCrusader]

151. The UK is attempting to do just that.

And I can make a gun, a fully functional, fully automatic weapon with the simple tools found in any middle school metal shop in the country.

There's nothing magic about firearms. They are simple machines.

[MillennialDem]

158. You still need the propellant. I know the gun itself isn't hard to make. I suppose you could make it

spring or air operated but a spring or air operated home made gun with home made bullets certainly is not going to be that good.

[AtheistCrusader]

161. Propellant isn't that hard if you're willing to compromise a bit on quality.

[sarisataka]

168. It would be dangerous as all hell

but the mixture of sulfur, charcoal and potassium nitrate has been well known for centuries.

Actually the hardest component to create is the initiator or primer. (Sorry- no hints on that but fair warning, it is way more dangerous than the propellant)

[AtheistCrusader]

172. It's not hard to make the primers, but it is hard not to blow your face off in the process. True.

[MillennialDem]

174. I don't know what else it's used for, but it seems like someone buying the sulfur and potassium nitr

ate could get busted there. As for the pimer / initiator - don't know much about guns, just a mathematician so obviously have some general STEM knowledge.

Plus making the powder could attract some attention as well.

[sarisataka]

179. The quantities needed would be low

so unlikely to raise any flags. After you have the materials it is a simple mixing of dry ingredients. Without knowing purity levels,there s risk but you won't know until you actually use the powder.

Primers use very small quantities of very unstable compounds. Although little is needed, you need to make a large enough batch that real danger is present. Those attempting to make it without good chemical knowledge will self-identify, explosively.

[MillennialDem]

169. Sounds like a lot of arsing around and that a knife would be a lot more effective at that

point. Plus it would relatively easy to catch you firing unless you have a sound proofed basement with a bunch of sand to shoot into. More arsing around.

[AtheistCrusader]

173. All true.

[MillennialDem]

177. I think this is exactly why we have so many shootings and relatively few bombings. You can

make a bomb but it's a lot of arsing around. You can buy a gun in most states with a mild background check and wait period. I think if you could buy grenades or sticks of dynamite at Walmart we'd see a lot more incidents with explosives.

[AtheistCrusader]

185. Sadly, the highest kill count of any school attack still belongs to explosives.

I agree that explosives are a lot harder than the current availability of guns.

Difficulty lies in distinguishing between the good guys and bad guys, and the laws that will help versus those that annoy and burn political capital.

We don't have registration because of shenanigans like closing the NFA registry by voice vote in the Hughes Amendment. Nobody trusts us to regulate this because of shit like that. There were two crimes committed by lawfully owned NFA weapons, one by a police officer. No matter, they effectively banned fully automatic weapons made after 1986 because they are scary. There was no credible threat. There is no other more successful gun law in the U.S. Than the 1934 NFA, and it worked.

Now it's broken by people who wanted to ban fully automatic weapons, and it serves as a political example how registries can be abused to cause confiscation or bans.

Sucks. We had a good thing going there.

[hack89]

138. Talk to the UK which has implemented knife control

they seem to think otherwise.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. I've carried a sword on the street.

Seattle has rules about it, but not the state.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. Courts have never held the 2nd to apply to ordnance. Only firearms.

[MillennialDem]

136. I haven't said courts said otherwise. I still think it's bull. I think either the 2nd means

weapons apply to militas and should be well regulated

or that it applies to explosives and vehicles as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

141. I think privateers tried to make that distinction back in the day, as they liked to be armed.

I don't think it went over well. That would map well to your comparison of modern vehicles and crew served weapons.

I would agree if you said it was a mostly arbitrary decision, but I think it was well informed, because it restricted destruction to one-shot-one-target rather than area of effect weapons that cannot be used in a targeted manner against a single target.

[sarisataka]

153. To legally be a privateer

you would need a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, per ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11. This would allow a case by case permission of private ownership of crew served weaponry.

[MillennialDem]

156. And that's just like, your opinion man. Sorry for being snarky but I do think the

2nd means no guns or guns + everything else.

And that's just my opinion too.

I don't think there's any rationale for saying the founders would only support modern semi automatic riles, shotguns, and handguns (and whatever the technical term for a non automatic non semi automatic gun is) if they were alive today.

Guns can also be used on more than one target by the way. Shoot people in a line and many times it will go through more than one of them.

[AtheistCrusader]

162. Well, my opinion AND the SC's opinion, and federal courts opinions and and and.

But I agree, on principle, it IS somewhat of an arbitrary decision.

[MillennialDem]

165. When did I disagree that that's how the courts have ruled? I'm not a fact deprived conservative :p

[AtheistCrusader]

170. No, no, you're fine. I've actually enjoyed our conversation.

In fact, our state there's a movement to try and ban hollow point bullets as 'too lethal', when in fact, they are meant to reduce the over-penetration issue you described.

It's funny how different oxen get gored at different points, and from unexpected directions in this debate.


I didn't mean you were saying something technically inaccurate, I was actually agreeing in principle, maybe I worded it badly.

[thesquanderer]

119. Adapting the 1st amendment to new technologies has likewise been a challenge.

See, for example:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/internet-first-amendment-overview

I also seem to remember something about plans for building a bomb being legal to print, but illegal to put on the internet. Maybe someone else remembers the detail there. I'm paranoid enough to not want to put "internet bomb building plans" into my google search history.

The point is, adapting constituitional protections to changing circumstances is an on-going challenge, and there are always lines being drawn. Would the framers have said that the 1st amendment protects speech on the internet? Or that the 2nd protected ownership of semi-automatic weapons? Ultimately, the answers can depend on the 9 people on the Supreme Court, and then whether they can be popularly overridden via constitutional amendment.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. A semi-auto rifle existed prior to the ratification of our constitution.

The idea was not new. Rather, the preferred/ultimate implementation was novel.

It remains to be seen how Directed Energy Weapons end up classified. Microwave, Laser, etc.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. There existed a 20 shot semi-automatic rifle in 1780.

Girandoni Repeating Rifle. It used compressed air as a propellant, rather than gunpowder and it was quite expensive, and rare. (Meriwether Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition.)

It was adequate for killing deer, meaning, more than adequate to kill humans.

It failed in the marketplace of ideas of the time due to manufacture cost, and the cost to train the austrian army in how to use it. (They deployed it operationally, but it was too fragile, too expensive to train, too expensive to buy long-term)

[beevul]

226. There was also the puckle gun.

The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock[1] revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun," being called such in 1722,[2] though its operation does not match the modern use of the term.

[AtheistCrusader]

230. Firearms evolve.

That is quite the specimen. Wow.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. The 2nd has never been construed by any court to apply to ordnance and explosives.

No area effect weapons. It applies to directed arms, like a soldier would carry.

A HEAT rocket is closer to a firearm in function/use, but it's still never been classified by any court as an 'arms' under the protection of the 2nd amendment. It's classed as a Destructive Device, and falls under a whole different set of regulations.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

221. Go ahead and show me the person who can maintain, in working order, an atom bomb.

And it is legal to own tanks.

As a historical note, the first battle of the American Revolutionary War was the battle of Lexington and Concord. The British moved to seize an arms cache belonging to the colonists. The cache included 24-pound cannon whose only practical purpose was destroying fortified positions. That is what the founders felt were worth fighting for to allow the people to maintain.

[blackspade]

178. There are all kinds of state and local restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

But gun humpers don't care about them.
Can I openly carry around a battle ax? A Claymore? A 7" switchblade? Nope. Restricted. Regulated.

This is only about 'gun rights' not 2nd Amendment rights.
And with all things guns, I guess 'gun rights' trump "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

220. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence not the

Constitution. The DOI is a statement of principles and an indictment of the government of King George. The Constitution is the codification of those principles into law that defines the limits of government.

The fact melee weapons are restricted is not a case for infringing on the 2A. Self defense is still an inherent right. I don't see melee weapons as being practical in a self defense situation but if a person used one of those weapons in an incident of legitimate self defense why should they be prosecuted by force of law just for the means in which they defended themselves?

[blackspade]

234. Did I say it was?

But that is one of the guiding principals of the Constitution, yes?

"The fact melee weapons are restricted is not a case for infringing on the 2A."

How then are gun restrictions infringing? Arms are arms after all.
So, if you are being infringed or restricted under the 2A when the government tells you that you have to have a permit, or that you can't open carry, etc, how can you say with a straight face that melee weapons don't have the same protections from infringements or restrictions?
The hypocrisy of this argument is stunning.

As for self defense, what does that have to do with anything in this context other than to throw more crap into the blender just to see what happens?

[RoccoR5955]

3. Don't tell that to

an ammosexual!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Women and minorities are the fastest growing segments of CC applicants.

What do you imagine women are doing to sexualize ammo and guns? How do you see minorities employing guns as phallic symbols?

[gcomeau]

23. How in the fucking world...

...you think gender or race has a damn thing to do with people fetishizing firearms is beyond me.

[Indydem]

71. Because nobody fetishises firearms.

Rule 34 not withstanding.

The constant implication that anyone who owns or supports the ownership of firearms is a "gun humper" or a "fettishist" is the problem.

Your comments (and people like you), and your extremism on the matter, is why it is impossible to build a bridge to responsible gun laws.

[gcomeau]

93. Bull freaking shit they don't.

I can stand up right now in my office and point at 6 of them off the top of my head.

(And you do grasp symbolic language right? Or do you think fetishizing firearms requires literally employing them as sex objects or something?)

[sarisataka]

100. There IS a lot of fetishizing

see posts 50 & 97 for examples

If you believe it all about size, explain my 2 3/4 revolver...

[beevul]

227. That poster is absolutely correct.

Your comments (and people like you), and your extremism on the matter, is why it is impossible to build a bridge to responsible gun laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. In a sexualized manner, like the person he was replying to suggested?

That shouldn't be beyond you.

[gcomeau]

154. Perhaps you should have continued reading the exchange for 2 more posts...

...and reached this one before replying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7115029

[AtheistCrusader]

163. Post 3 contains all the awful I need for one day, thanks.

[RoccoR5955]

199. You should remember two things

1) I never said that EVERY gun owner is an ammosexual.
2) Denial is not a river in Africa.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

225. Considering the Controllers portray gun owners as white male redneck fetishists the Controllers

apparently keep their own ideations. But since women are arming themselves and you still portray them as sexualizing guns why don't you show enough backbone to graphically describe what that entails rather than cowardly hiding behind euphemisms.

[RoccoR5955]

97. Two words

Penis envy.

[beevul]

229. Thats patently sexist, and you should delete it. N/T

[RoccoR5955]

233. I don't understand your reasoning.

Because I stated something that is an actual fact of life among a few people it is sexist? I made no connotation, I only stated two words, in response to a question.
Perhaps I am just uninformed, so if you could explain how this is sexist, I might consider deleting it, but just by stating that it is sexist, does not make it sexist.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. There's only a 20% delta between republican and democratic gun owners.

So uh, careful where you swing that smearing brush.

[krispos42]

4. So, you want the government to drastically cut the number of guns in this county?

Just so were clear?

[wolfie001]

5. Where are the liberal scholars on this?

Out hunting endangered species? Appalling really! Regulations seem to be the only things that are not being followed! Traveling gun shows are like a Tombstone, AZ free for all.

[reformist2]

7. The state constitutions are eye-opening, and should inform any discussion of this issue.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Just a few examples:

New Hampshire: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. "

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Colorado: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

[safeinOhio]

30. State laws, up until a few weeks ago

banned same sex marriage. Not so much now.

[hack89]

38. Except the supreme court has already ruled on the 2A

secondly, even if the 2A amendment magically goes away, that has no impact on the state constitutions. The states cannot take away rights. They can always grant additional rights. Your analogy is backwards.

[thesquanderer]

63. Not backwards, because fed law trumps state law

Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

and SC decisions must be followed by the states.

[hack89]

70. So when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage ten years ago

all those marriages were illegal? Or were they legal in Massachusetts and illegal elsewhere?

You do understand that the 2A is not stopping anyone from passing strict gun control? AWBs, registration, magazine size limits, licenses, etc are all perfectly constitutional right now. The only explicit constitutional right you have is to own a handgun in your home. That is what Heller says.

[thesquanderer]

106. The point is that whatever MA did 10 years ago...

...would ultimately be trumped by whichever way the federal laws and supreme court went. That's what answered your question, "were they legal in Massachusetts and illegal elsewhere?"

But as to your other point, I agree. NYC has strict gun control laws right now, for example. This really gets back to a fundamental argument about states' rights. You could have made the same argument about the Affordable Care Act. i.e. a federal approach was not necessary, because nothing was preventing states from implementing better health insurance regulation if they wanted to. Indeed, states like New York and California already had laws that provided many of the same protections that Obamacare brought to the rest of the country. Or for a more extreme example, was federal anti-slavery required? After all, states were free to outlaw slavery on their own, if they wanted to. The question in these cases is then whether there is an over-riding benefit in forcing the "lagging" states to catch up to the more "progressive" states. Sometimes there is, sometimes not. So now we're talking about whether gun control falls into that category or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. If the rethugs got their way and revoked Roe vs. Wade somehow, abortion would remain legal in my

state. We passed state laws enforcing its legality AFTER RvW because it was that important. Because anyone paying attention knows, RvW was a patch, a hotfix. Not a solution. It COULD be revoked.

And if it is, Washington remains legal for abortion, via state law and the federal 10th Amendment.

(Which will make conservatives heads explode because they're always mouthing off about 'states rights' when convenient to them)

[thesquanderer]

191. True. A reversal of Roe v Wade won't make abortion illegal per se.

It merely would allow states to make abortion illegal. Some woud, some wouldn't.

Thanks for pointing out my mis-statement, which I have edited out of my post.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. Prop 8 is a bad comparison, because it flew in the face of the 14th amendment.

State constitutions that protect firearms/personal use, are in alignment WITH the 2nd and 14th amendments, not fighting against.

[DetlefK]

9. It's part of the american way of life. Like sexual and religious hypocrisy.

Girls and women are sex-objects, but don't you dare to utter the word "vagina" in polite company or accidently show a nipple on TV.

Following the Bible is the most important thing in the world, except for the parts we don't like. (About 10 years ago, some people wanted to make an updated, conservative version of the Bible. Absolutely, seriously, a 100% not fucking kidding.)

Freedom is the most important thing in the world, except for those homos. Or atheists.

Aborting unwanted babies is wrong, wrong, wrong. Getting pregnant with an unwanted baby is right, right, right.

And others are guilty of intolerance for not tolerating your intolerance. You are the real victim here!

The birthplace of modern democracy, with a permanent Two-Party-system in a stalemate, with a voting-system that makes it hard to vote, with a voting-system that by design prevents a huge chunk of votes from counting at all for national elections, with elections held on days where you can't afford to go voting, with permanent fretting about voter-IDs and without a system to give each voter a permanent voter-ID, with a voting-system that by design cannot be double-checked whether the election-results are correct or incorrect, with a political system geared towards a collaboration of politicians and rich donors (aka the textbook-definition of a banana-republic) ...

With the undying belief that rich and famous people are somehow morally better people.

[prayin4rain]

14. So true! Why, though? I don't understand how we got here. n/t

[Vinca]

10. To heck with it. They want to repeal the 14th amendment. I want to repeal the 2nd.

The founders didn't anticipate semi-automatic weapons and it needs to be rewritten. Maybe we can include flame throwers into the mix.

[newfie11]

24. Agreed+++++++ nt

[Travis_0004]

54. Does the first admendment only protect newspapers

I'm guessing the founders had an easier time predicitng semi auto rifles then they did predicting the internet.

[mythology]

112. It's rather difficult to kill people with the Internet

Circumstances change. For whatever reason, or society has become incapable of having almost unfettered access to guns without using them to kill others.

Yes not every gun owner goes on to kill, but far to many of them do, ablnd there really isn't a reason to keep guns around. There is a less than zero percent chance that using small arms would deter the army if some future leader were to attempt to install martial law.

[AtheistCrusader]

166. A 20 shot semi-auto existed 10 years before the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

History is hard.

Girandoni Repeating Rifle.

[Adrahil]

11. Two things....

1) In the 18th century (and up into the 19th century), "well regulated" simply meant "sufficiently functional and/or equipped." It does not have the same statutory implication it does today.

2) It is an explanatory clause. The explains what follows, but does not constrain it. If it DID constrain it, it would have something like, "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the free state, right of the people in such militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But it doesn't say that.

You can rail against the Amendment, but I do think it protects personal firearm ownership as written.

I will also say that I think the right of self defense is the most basic of human rights. What's involved with that is open to debate, but in general, I am not a fan of the state reserving access to weapons to itself and it's agents, even for the "good" of the people.

[safeinOhio]

34. I need mustard gas

for self defense. Single action long guns will work until I can get the gas.

[hack89]

40. The 2A does not cover chemical weapons.

but you knew that.

[safeinOhio]

46. Nor auto loading or cartridge weapons.

But you knew that too.

[hack89]

74. Just like the first does not apply to electronic media? OK.

btw, the Austrian army adopted an auto-loading rifle in 1780.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

[LonePirate]

42. This is why we need an outright repeal of the 2A.

We need to prohibit people from possessing guns and we need to begin the decades long task of confiscating every gun currently in the public's hands.

[Lizzie Poppet]

48. And just who do you propose conduct that confiscation?

The police? Even leaving aside that the majority of cops support civilian possession of firearms (and would likely refuse such orders in large numbers), they are not adequate to the task. Even with the recent (and alarming) militarization of the police, they would be absurdly outnumbered - and don't doubt for a moment that there would be violent resistance.

The military? Posse Comitatus aside, the military is even more in favor of civilian firearms than the police.

[Lee-Lee]

60. I would like to see your roadmap to how that happens

You would need 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress first.

Then, if you get that, you need 3/4 of the states to back it.

What 38 state legislatures do you have in mind?

Or a Constitutional Convention, and that is even harder to pull off.

Then, who do you propose does the confiscation?

Cops? Maybe in big urban areas, but in rural America no way- you can't even get compliance with registration in NY and CT and sheriffs there openly say they won't enforce those laws.

The Feds? Not without increasing the size of the federal police force about 30x.

The military? Not legal.

[LonePirate]

80. You are thinking in the here and now. Repealing the 2A might take 20-30 years or more.

Gun ownership rates are declining. I don't think anyone but the hardcore gun nuts dispute that fact. More and more people are seeking solutions to gun violence which shows no indications of decreasing any time soon. The trajectory is apparent if you take the time to look for it.

In 1995, you would have been hard pressed to find someone who believed marriage equality would be legal and constitutionally supported nationwide by 2015. Yet here we are. Repealing the 2A is in the same situation as marriage equality was back then.

A repeal of the 2A seems unlikely by 2030; but public opinion is moving in that direction. As for 2040 and beyond, it certainly seems possible if not likely to me.

[Lee-Lee]

84. I think you still don't grasp how hard it would be

If marriage equality required amending the Constitution it would still be a long shot dream today, so that analogy doesn't work.

[LonePirate]

90. I think you still don't grasp how the country is starting to change regarding this issue.

If we elect a Democratic president in 2016, we could have a Supreme Court majority by 2020 that is open to restricting the 2A. Then it's just a matter of chipping away at the 2A and changing public opinion over the course of a couple of decades until it becomes politically and constitutionally feasible to repeal it.

Forgive me for having a progressive view of what is possible in the future instead of having a regressive view of what is not possible in the present.

[Lizzie Poppet]

114. I havent' seen a single recent poll that indicates increased support for such a repeal.

Same for support for an outright ban. At most, there seems to be support for reasonable measures like universal background checks.

On the other hand, gun sales, as indicated by the number of NICS background checks conducted, have spiked rather dramatically over the last couple-three years. In the few places where a permit to purchase is required, applications for new purchasers have climbed, which is at least one indication that those polls claiming that the overall number of gun owners is declining are rubbish. If the country is changing in regards to guns, it doesn't seem to be in the direction you're asserting.

Violent crime rates are dropping, and have been since the 70's (as an overall trend). This despite very little in the way of additional gun controls in most locales. That progressive future appears to be happening without additional gun control.

[LonePirate]

176. Have there even been any recent polls conducted on repealing the 2A?

There certainly is support for it among forward thinkers on the Internet, which is where many new causes and movements are formed nowadays.

As for your argument about numbers, this Newsweek article from March (http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822) details how gun ownership in the U.S. fell to 32% in 2014 which is down from 50% or so in 1980. If we do the math, 32% of 318M (2014 U.S. population) = 101.76M while 50% of 227M (1980 U.S. population) = 113.5M. Yet somehow you seem to think year over year increases in new gun ownership applications (background checks?) that probably number in the tens of thousands at most are enough to compensate for the reduction in millions of people no longer living with guns. I'm sorry, the numbers simply do not support your case.

Attitudes about guns are changing in this country, especially among younger Americans. It may take 20 or 30 or more years but today's loose gun ownership rules and lack of regulations are going to change to be more restrictive in the years to come as we march toward a long overdue repeal of the antiquated and unnecessary 2A.

[Lizzie Poppet]

180. There are very sound reasons to suspect those ownership polls are grossly inaccurate.

Unverified survey polling (that is, telephone surveys w/o any physical verification of the accuracy of responses) are reasonably accurate for most questions. However, they are notoriously inaccurate when the subject matter is controversial. That is to say, when the questions are about things like gun ownership, drug use, marital infidelity, and such, people lie to researchers in very significant numbers. FWIW, among gun owners with whom I've discussed this point (maybe a dozen, so this is purely anecdotal) not a single one would admit gun ownership to some stranger calling on the phone, regardless of any assurance of confidentiality. Not one...

As for the numbers, yes the number of permit-to-purchase applications number in the tens of thousands. That's because only a couple of jurisdiction in the country require them. The number of NICS background checks, on the other hand, now number in the tens of millions per year (over 21 million in 2013), and have been climbing rather sharply over the last several years.

[GGJohn]

73. We;; then, you need to get right on that?

Good luck convincing 2/3rds of the Congress and 3/4 of the states.
And even if you did somehow get that repeal of the 2A, it still wouldn't prohibit the possession of firearms, it would just fall to the states to set their own firearms policies.

[LonePirate]

85. You can repeal the 2A and prohibit firearms in the same amendment.

The matter would not be left up to the states. Besides, you need to view this on a mid-21st Century timeline instead of viewing it in the present. Repealing the 2A is a very long term goal, not a short term one.

[sarisataka]

88. May I quote you

whenever I hear "No one is suggesting guns be confiscated"?

[LonePirate]

96. I certainly and proudly advocate the repeal of the 2A and the confiscation of all guns.

They have no place in a modern society.

[sarisataka]

101. Thank you

I am told you are in the extreme minority but maybe not.

[LonePirate]

102. True progressives like myself are accustomed to holding extreme minority opinions.

I consider it to be a badge of honor.

[BlueEye]

219. Are you advocating for the confiscation of guns by force if necessary?

Because that is what it would come down to. What you are suggesting would start the Second Civil War. These people are not kidding when they say "from my cold, dead hands." Unless you personally are willing to both kill and to die to confiscate guns, I suggest you think hard about the ramifications of confiscation.

[GGJohn]

89. You really think that gun owners are just going to sit idly by and let this happen?

There would be a HUGE backlash against the Congress if they tried that, witness 1994.

And there will be generations, like my kids, grandkids, great grandkids who will defend the 2A against those such as yourself.
You can pretend all you want that the 2A will be repealed in the future, but it just ain't gonna happen.

[LonePirate]

99. When this country finally reaches a point where it repeals the 2A and confiscates guns ...

Then anyone who wishes to disobey the law, such as your descendants as you seem to think, should prepare for the consequences of breaking the law. The clinging to your guns argument is simply not worthy of honor or respect in my eyes regardless if you support such martyrdom.

[SheilaT]

105. I'm with you on gun confiscation, so you're not alone.

It really could be done somewhat incrementally. Start be requiring they all be registered and insured. An owner is responsible for any and all guns in his possession. If stolen, he needs to report that theft. If not reported, and the gun turns up used by someone else, that owner gives up all guns forever.

Other details need to be worked out. Meanwhile, why in the world should anyone who supports gun ownership ever be the least bit bothered by the daily gun carnage that occurs in this country?

[LonePirate]

111. Thank you. Your incremental approach is worthy of support.

No civilian in this country needs a gun. People use fear and/or pleasure to convince themselves they need a gun for whatever reason, which is simply not the case. It is time we start changing minds and laws related to gun possession in this country.

[Lizzie Poppet]

115. "It really could be done somewhat incrementally."

This is why so many gun owners oppose registration.

[ecstatic]

183. Yep. It won't be easy at all, could even rise to the level of a

mini civil war, but it's worth it when you look at the direction we're headed in. It's not going to get better, it will only get worse. It's time to stop digging.

[CTyankee]

44. repeal of the 2nd A is a good idea, IMO. There are modern constitutional democracies in

the world that function just fine without a version of the 2nd A in their own constitutional document. I think the right of self defense is self evident.

[thesquanderer]

64. The alternate definition of "regulated" doesn't really change anything

For those who believe the explanatory phrase has any bearing at all (and I understand, you don't), it still means that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to assure the state a proper militia, regardless of how you define "well regulated."

[a2liberal]

87. +a gazillion

Glad to see at least one person here pointing this out, and way more elegantly than I could have. It's amazing that the anti-gun "WELL REGULATED" nuts can call RKBA proponents "illiterate" but at the same time not understand basic grammar or history. It's one thing if you want to discuss repealing the 2nd Amendment, but trying to twist it into something it's not is getting old.

[truebluegreen]

109. Fine.

What is "sufficiently functional" about today's gun owners? Sufficiently functional to do what?

[blackspade]

189. Not exactly...

"You can rail against the Amendment, but I do think it protects personal firearm ownership as written. "

It protects personal arms ownership as written, which includes firearms along with a host of other weapons, some of which are restricted and regulated in many jurisdictions.

[CBGLuthier]

12. The gunsanity is the number one reason I may never return to America.

I wish someone could explain why the fuck it is so important to be able to own guns. Why that fucking amendment is more important, obviously, than life itself. repeal the goddamn thing it is an obsolete obscenity.

[hack89]

13. "The 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" - Democratic party platform. nt

[SecularMotion]

19. Here's the full Democratic Party platform on guns

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

[hack89]

22. So we agree that the 2A allows strict regulation of guns

go tell the OP that the 2A is not the problem.

[hack89]

15. The 2A permits strict regulation. Even Scalia says that in Heller.

AWBs, registration, magazine size limits are all perfectly constitutional. Your problem is not legal - there is simply not enough popular support for the gun laws you want.

[jeff47]

125. There is popular support, but it is not "single-issue" popular support

A majority wants much stricter gun control. However, that majority is unwilling to vote only based on that.

A minority wants zero gun control and "shall issue". And is willing to vote only based on that.

As long as the majority is not willing to change their vote only based on gun control, gun control loses at the polls.

[kentuck]

16. If I could only find one gun owner...?

...that could give a good answer to that question, not a bullshit answer, but a real answer. What does "well-regulated" mean??

[Lee-Lee]

25. Read post 11 above

In the time it was written "well regulated" meant well equipped and on good working order, not the "heavily managed" meaning we assign today.

You have to look at what words and phrases meant when they were written, as language evolves.

[Fred Sanders]

39. Humanity evolving...how about that?? Guns evolving from muskets to assault rifles with 100 bullets ..how about that?

Every argument of the gun lover has one thing missing.....common logic.

[safeinOhio]

43. It meant we should be like the Swizz.

The writers were against standing armies, thus the militias. Yes, you have to look at context, like in the context of the 21st century. Not a time of swords and muskets.

[safeinOhio]

45. You mean back when

they only had single fire, barrel loading muskets?

I'm more than good with looking at contest.

[Maedhros]

203. In terms of people, I believe "well regulated" also meant "well trained and organized." [n/t]

[hack89]

41. Well trained and equipped. nt

[-none]

50. They probably don't even know that 'well regulated' phrase is in there.

Or if they do, they think it means to use two hands on their personal protection piece, when they fantasize about using it.

[One_Life_To_Give]

117. In Context of the late 18th Century

That is a collection of Individuals, Ready and Able to Defend themselves and their Neighbors against a variety of threats. Including chasing criminals, armed attack, working in support of the regular army. Their Officers were elected from amongst the volunteers. While units such as the Minute Men are more well known. They were only a subset of the total Militia in the community. Which effectively comprised every person deemed capable of contributing.

[retrowire]

17. that annnd

the fact that the second amendment was written at a time that we didn't have the type of firearm technology that we have today.

so the second amendment really needs to be revised in some way.

[Lee-Lee]

27. Do you apply that logic to the entire Bill of Rights?

There also was no internet, radio or television that could allow such rapid spread of disinformation and propaganda- so should we rethink the first amendment too?

[Fred Sanders]

35. Ask the NRA why they removed those words from their display at national HQ? Kind of telling....

[retrowire]

37. actually yes.

times are a changing.

I for one believe that internet anonymity should be universally thrown out the window. to many people use it to do many deplorable things that would get them thrown in jail had it been done with a traceable identity.

regarding the rapid growth of the internet in general, we need to be faster with laws regarding it.

and I just noticed you pulled a straw man. lol

no, I don't think the first amendment needs revision. never even implied that. keep things in context, thanks.

[-none]

55. Because the rest of the Bill of Rights is not causing so many people to be killed, as the 2nd Amendm

It really needs to be revisited and reinterpreted in a realistic and sane manner.

[Travis_0004]

58. Air rifles with 20 shot magazines were invented in 1779

About 10 years before the second amendment was written. It could fire 20 shots in under a minute very easily. Yes, it was crude, and had issues, but I don't think anybody said "nobody will ever improve on this design"

[AtheistCrusader]

175. Girandoni Repeating Rifle. Next fallacy?

[retrowire]

182. not a handgun nor was it mass produced and readily available to civilians

Next feeble attempt to justify an ancient law in today's scenario?

[AtheistCrusader]

186. Meriwether Lewis was a civilian. He carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Manufacturing cost wasn't the issue when you said that and you know it. That rifle could kill 20 humans without reloading.

[retrowire]

192. lewis and clark were army men commissioned by the president himself

with the purpose of exploration.

you are missing the key words of "readily available". were there gun stores, gun shows and an overwhelmingly large gun culture at the time?

or did people just use them for their intended purposes? like hunting, war and exploration?

it seems this particular gun was very unique and only made available to military personnel at the time.

try again if you must.

[AtheistCrusader]

194. None of those aspects have been repeated as issues related to civil rights expanded

such as the availability, cost, or frequency, which mirrors first amendment distribution of thought/speech/text.

That gun was not restricted to the military in any way.
Lewis left the military 2 years prior to the expedition.

[retrowire]

196. he still didn't buy it off of a store shelf.

he was commissioned.

by the president.

the government gave him the gun.

got that?

[AtheistCrusader]

207. The government didn't give him that gun. Cite your source.

Every single source I've seen states:

"Meriwether Lewis purchased an air gun with his own money at Harpers Ferry, while purchasing supplies for the expedition"

This wasn't even a US Government field test for the weapon. This was something Lewis simply bought.
http://www.lewisandclarktrail.com/lewisairgun.htm

A commission is not necessarily military in nature, though I am ignorant of whether it may have been in this particular case.

[retrowire]

209. well isnt that something

now I stand corrected.

but this still doesn't mean that the accessibility to guns nor the advancements in guns is the same today as it was then.

one ancient automatic gun is not the same as the many varieties of guns today. couple that with the gun culture that exists and how readily available automatic guns are to civilians.

and BTW, I'm sorry for being a jerk in the beginning of this conversation, it wasn't right and I regret it.

[AtheistCrusader]

210. No worries.

It's a contentious issue, and I understand if it can be frustrating or upsetting.

If you could bring the founders forward in time, I think they would be astounded by our armaments, but I don't know if they'd change their opinion on allowing it. On the flip side, they weren't olympian gods either, they were just men, and they had an opinion and they acted on it, and they could be just plain old wrong. They were well educated for the time, but just humans.

Our gun culture is currently very unhealthy. I'll be the first to admit it. I've tried to be a positive influence on the people I know in that circle, and I think i've made some progress, but overall, we've not even begun to start.

[retrowire]

211. well thank you

for keeping your cool during our conversation. it did us both good. sorry again.

I agree. but I see we are in agreement that changes must be made.

I'm not against guns entirely. I'm against mental illness. know what I mean? I think society needs to do something about our current mindset of entitlement and how to cope with differences.

our new society has brought us together and yet it had separated us in so many ways.

are you familiar with Charlie Chaplin's speech from the Great Dictator?

[tiptonic]

26. So true

Have had the argument many times. Enough is enough but no one wants to believe it. So sad.

[Bettie]

31. Unfortunately, we'll never win this argument

in fact, the regulation part is stripped out more every day. We're at the point where it is pretty much a free-for-all. Any regulations in one city are negated by the fact that three miles away, there's a place where you can buy whatever you want and tote it home to fulfill whatever murderous fantasy you may have.

I have a right wing brother who is a gun nut. He tells me regularly that the right of human beings to be alive is nothing next to his right to own whatever gun he wants to have. He is angry that he cannot have fully automatic weapons. He honestly believes that if anyone so much as sets foot on his property, he has the absolute right to kill them for trespassing.

He's a nutcase, but he's not alone. Far too many of the "responsible gun owners" are like him, so afraid or filled with hate that they are eager, salivating for a chance to kill and get away with it.

Me, I'd just like to see fewer people dying in our streets due to other people thinking it is their sacred right to take their lives.

[Snobblevitch]

208. If your brother could pass the background check

and if he has enough money, he could legally purchase and possess a fully-automatic firearm. They are quite expensive.

[Fred Sanders]

33. Which is all why the NRA stripped those words out of their display of the 2nd at their national HQ!!

[ileus]

36. It's need clarified to assure the 2A is a individual right.

[IronLionZion]

47. What does that part even mean?

There's no doubt that the founders put that in the constitution after overthrowing a foreign occupation during our revolution. But I haven't found any court ruling on what exactly "a well regulated militia" means.

Not to derail the topic, but to address your first 2 paragraphs, are you aware of the gun murder rates in places like Brazil, Honduras, Congo, Indonesia, Phillipines, Jamaica, and even our neighbor to the south: Mexico? Canada and Europe are not the entire world.

I think the reason people cite multiple causes of gun violence is because there are multiple causes of gun violence. The Chicago murders are related to poverty, crime, and drugs. The mass shootings are related to mental health or racism. Media does tend to glorify violence and make murderers famous. And some people just have the desire to hurt/kill people because they are unhappy with their lives for whatever reason. During the Baltimore riot violence recently I had reliably liberal peaceful friends tell me they are glad they have guns in the house (hunting and sport shooting) just in case it comes into their neighborhood.

If it was simple, it would be solved already. It's a complex issue which is why so many people disagree and have very strong opinions. The answer is not that people are too stupid to pass laws against it and stop it. That's just lazy.

One more note. Pro-gun conservatives are literally too stupid and racist to even wrap their heads around Mexico's extremely strict gun laws. It would help their case. :

GUNS ARE ILLEGAL IN MEXICO

Don’t bring firearms or ammunition across the border into Mexico.

Don’t carry a knife, even a small pocketknife, on your person in Mexico.

You may become one of dozens of U.S. Citizens who are arrested each month for unintentionally violating Mexico’s strict weapons laws.

If you are caught with firearms or ammunition in Mexico...

You will go to jail and your vehicle will be seized;
You will be separated from your family, friends, and your job, and likely suffer substantial financial hardship;
You will pay court costs and other fees ranging into the tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself;
You may get up to a 30-year sentence in a Mexican prison if found guilty.
If you carry a knife on your person in Mexico, even a pocketknife . . .

You may be arrested and charged with possession of a deadly weapon;
You may spend weeks in jail waiting for trial, and tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, court costs, and fines;
If convicted, you may be sentenced to up to five years in a Mexican prison.
Claiming not to know about the law will not get you leniency from a police officer or the judicial system. Leave your firearms, ammunition, and knives at home. Don’t bring them into Mexico.
http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/tijuana/warning.html

[fredamae]

49. In 1701 there was

No "official" National Guard-however it is my personal opinion that early "Militias" back then were part of what became our National Guard". In MY opinion, that is what the second was talking about. A Well Regulated Militia, in my view, can only mean to define what became the National Guard.

I suggest a separate amendment should be considered in defining the parameters of "individual gun ownership" beyond what is reasonably considered necessary for hunting food.

[Hoyt]

52. Even if toting and arming up is a right, that doesn't mean one should be excused for anti-social

behavior and sick hobbies.

I believe the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, but if we buy the gun fanciers' efforts to keep access to more gunz, their behavior needs to be viewed as unacceptable in a civilized society.

[CTyankee]

53. Amen. Amen. Amen.

[madokie]

56. I'm welcoming you aboard Don

We need all the help we can get on this board when it comes to guns.

[mnhtnbb]

57. Surprised to see no one has mentioned the role state militias played in enforcing slavery

when the Second Amendment was drafted.

A little history lesson from Thom Hartmann at Truthout.


The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.


http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

[CTyankee]

59. thank you! This should be shouted out loud regularly...

but a lot of people were never taught that in school and even some here seem to ignore it...that's why your post reminding us is great.

Good job, mnhtnbb!

[mnhtnbb]

61. I was never taught this in school...and I went to school in NJ and CA...can imagine

if it wasn't taught there, no way it would have been taught in slave holding states.

Our sense of history is quite minimal in this country. Look at the huge number
of people who want to claim the country was founded as a "Christian" nation,
despite the fact the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to avoid
such a situation.

[CTyankee]

65. and you can be assured that growing up in segregated schools in TX in the 1950s

I never heard about it either...

[mountain grammy]

76. Because white men decided to write the entire constitution around them.

Every protection in the Constitution is protecting white men and their assets, in this case, slaves. The wealth and assets of white men were to be protected over and at the expense of everyone else. If others can somehow succeed in this 1% controlled society, fine, but the already successful and their heirs are, and always have been, the true winners.

[PowerToThePeople]

75. with all the mass killings, I would say it is anarchy.

No regulation of the armed militia (er, random dudes with guns).

[Initech]

78. You are far more likely to be killed by a guy with a gun...

A million times over any terrorist group. Boko Haram? Al Qaeda? They're nothing compared to some lunatic with an assault rifle. Guys with assault rifles - officially the world's largest group of terrorists on the planet.

[Lizzie Poppet]

107. For such a large group of "terrorists," they sure don't kill very many people.

There are approximately 350-400 homicides committed with rifles of any type (not just "assault rifles&quot per year. Out of c. 13,000 total homicides... Looks like those "guys with assault rifles" really suck at terrorism.

[Joe Chi Minh]

79. I don't think anything vindicates the view of Americans as children,

held by the French, going back at least as far as the fifties - when it was told me by a Frenchman, not at all hostile to Americans. as much as their love affair with weapons; now not even just small arms, but real assault weapons, I think maybe even including including machine guns, mortars and grenades, but I believe certainly now FLAME-THROWERS! Before a nuclear bomb is OK'd, can you, I wonder, expect the latest version of the Russian Katyusha in the hands of who knows who?

The public just keeping pistols seems madness to Europeans, though it's surely too late to ban their purchase now. As for the 'open carry' nonsense, words fail me. I read a post by a vicar's wife on another forum, talking about her availing herself of the newly-minted, so-called, 'open carry' legal right. Europeans reading that would burst out laughing. I expect a doll's house would have been as unacceptable to her, in lieu, as it apparently was to Babe Zaharias (Didrikson), who famously replied, when asked if there was anything she didn't play, she growled, "Yeah, dolls."

[Amimnoch]

83. Well regulated is important, but how about Militia??

Militia: A military force that is raised from teh civil populaton to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

If we could just enforce that actual WORDING of the second ammendment, anytime some freak with a gun goes off the deep end, hat gun could be tied to a regulated group and force legal action on the entire group responsible for that gun.

[pocoloco]

91. DEATH BY GOVERNMENT

Democide!

No question our Founding Fathers were much smarter
than many today!

Unarmed, and with our collection of political wannabes?

Good Luck!

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

[Kablooie]

92. That's a misprint. The founding fathers meant un-regulated.

just like Jesus who took two fishes and made them into a huge military arsenal and distributed it among the masses.

[sarisataka]

95. What law would you like to see

that is not allowed under the Second Amendment?

[happyslug]

98. If you read Heller, the Second Amendment was basically ignored.

Scalia instead concentrated on then existing norms as the the "Rights of Englishmen". This was strange for Scalia, for that was the same rationale that made abortion a constitutional protected right, for abortion was LEGAL in 1792 when the Bill of Rights was adopted (and Scalia is on record REJECTING that rationale when it comes to abortion).

The reason Scalia did that is simple. If you read the history of the the French and Indian Wars, the Revolution and the Militia, the wording of the Second Amendment makes perfect sense. In papers written during the ratification process for the original constitution one of the attacks on the Constitution was it gave organization of the Militia to the Federal Government (Officers in the Militia were to be picked by the states, but the actual formation of the Militia was Federal only). The reason for the Federal Government having exclusive power over the militia was do to the experience of the American Revolution. When Von Stueben arrived at Valley Forge he not only trained the American Army in Prussian Army doctrine, he wrote a book, called the "Blue Book" about how US units were to be formed. At that time, such information was the key to making units capable of fighting together. Washington and Von Stuben then argued over its classification. In Prussia and other European Armies such books were classified as top secret, ranks below Colonel would know of the rules, but never see it is writing let it fall into enemy hands and be used against the side whose book it was. Washington so liked the book AND saw the need that the Militia be as interchangeable with the regular Army, that he ordered it published for anyone to buy. Think about it, a book so important that every other army would classify it as top secret, but in the American Army it was published.

Other aspects of supply the Army in the field was known to the members of the Constitutional Convention, including the need to standardized ammunition for ease of supply (This is seen in the Militia Act of 1792 which said all militia weapons will fire a .69 caliber round, the round the US had adopted during the Revolution for it was the Round of the French who were giving us Arms).

For the above reason the Convention gave exclusive control over the Militia to Congress. The problem was the experience of Pennsylvania in and prior to the French And Indian War, an experience still relatively fresh in the minds of many (it was only 30 years before, i.e. like Reagan is to us). Pennsylvania was the only Colony that refused to form a Militia prior to 1758. The Quakers opposes war and thus opposes Militia (while busy stealing lands from the Native Americans, and selling that land to people on the frontier, and when the Native Americans attacks those frontiersmen, the Quakers said, "Do not fight, but make sure you pay us for your land". In response to this Ben Franklin had told people in the Frontier to organize their own Militia, which they did (Ben Franklin actually did this for Philadelphia first, getting the Towns people to build a fort south of the City, so the City could delay any French Attack. we are talking 1740s and 1750s here, and thus give the townspeople time to vacant Philadelphia if the French decided to attack that city, given the French fleet sailed by the entire east coast of the US twice a year, once in June to get out of the Caribbean during Hurricane Season, and then back again in October, before the Waters of Quebec froze, a a perfectly possible attack).

Due to the memory of the threats during the French and Indian war, during the period of the ratification of the Constitution that Congress had exclusive control over the Militia became a hot issue. I.e. what would happen if Congress just decide NOT to organize the Militia? Would we be like Pennsylvania pre 1758, defenseless? The Constitutional Militia Provisions seems to forbid State Organizing the Militia AND seems to outlaw people during it themselves, as Ben Franklin told the Frontiersmen of Pennsylvania to do in the 1740s and 1750s.

The Second amendment was written to address the above concerns AND not interfere with the ability of Congress to organize the Militia. The Second made it clear that the States and the People have the RIGHT to organize themselves into Militia units (and to have the arms to do so) when the Federal Government fails to organize them into militia units.

Scalia and his fellow right wingers on the Supreme Court do NOT like that interpretation for it means Congress, the States and local government could pass gun control laws, as long as the people could still obtain weapons needed in a militia. i.e. it is possible to outlaw pistols and any other weapon, as long as the standard weapon of the US Army are kept legal for sale and possession of civilians (and that substitute standards that are popular and effective are also kept legal) such a law would NOT violate the Second Amendment.

Side note: What I mean by "Substitute weapons" are weapons popular with the Civilian market but still unable in military operations AND EASY TO SET UP SUPPLIES LINE FOR. Thus Congress could ban any firearm except those that fire, 7.62x51 NATO (Used by the US Army today), 7.62x62 (30'06, the most popular round in among Civilian shooters), 5.56x45 (used by the US Army today), 7.62x39 AK ammunition (Becoming more popular), 30-30 Winchester (still a very popular round for deer hunters) and the 12 gauge shotgun. if Congress, any State or local government would exempt the above rounds on the grounds they are the "Standard Rounds" for Militia weapons, Congress any State or local government could ban any other firearm. Please note, this is based on my reading of the Second Amendment, the Constitution and the history of 1745-1792. Scalia ignored this argument for it did not fit his world view of "Self Defense". The Dissent also ignored this view for it did not fit their view that the Militia is the National Guard, even through the federal law governing the National Guard says the National Guard is part of the Miltia but only part (Federal law says all males between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the Militia, women in the National Guard are also members of the Militia).

Side note: Scalia had hinted he supports the ban on Civilian Ownership of automatic weapons, he is for the private ownership if pistols for "Self defense" but against private ownership of weapons actually useful to a militia. This is consistent with right wing dogma, pistols are NOT view as a threat in any revolution, but rifles and shotguns are and thus the later must be regulated to make sure NOT available for revolutionaries.

Just a comment that the Second was ignored by everyone in Heller, it was mentioned but the history used ignored what was going on on the battlefields and in the Militia, instead both sides cited court cases that had little to do with HOW the militia was being used and formed.

[hack89]

146. The British Bill of Rights of 1689 had a right to bear arms independent of militia service

Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

as matter of fact, our Bill of Rights bears a striking resemblance to that British one as it was clearly the model for ours. Our founding fathers included the right to bear arms as part of "certain ancient rights and liberties" that all Englishmen enjoyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

[happyslug]

197. You have to read the British Bill of Rights in its entirely to understand the "Defence" protected.

While the British Bill of Rights uses the term "Defence" it is clearly a collective defense NOT self defense. First you must read the beginning part of that "Bill of Rights" which include the following "Crime" of King James II:

Disarming Protestants, &c.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

That sentence clearly sets up what "Defence" is being secured in the actual British Bill of Rights:

Subjects’ Arms.

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2

Thus reading those two sentences, it is clear what is being protected as a right to have arms for protection of what is called the Commons, not protection of oneself.

Also please note, Scalia did use the British Bill of Rights, but it was part of his writing to minimize the militia angle of the Second Amendment. As I noted about Abortion, the British Bill of Rights was only statutory, it was NOT up to the level of a Constitutional amendment. Thus unless "Reserved" as a right under Article 9 and 10 of the US Bill of Rights (as the US Supreme Court ruled as to Abortion in Roe v Wade) it is subject to change by simply passing a law. That the US Congress failed to add Self Defense to the Bill of Rights implies that they did not think it was a right that needed to be preserved in a constitutional amendment. i.e. Congress that passed the Bill of Rights thought such self defense should be reserved to the states to preserve OR change as the states saw the need to do so.

When you read the "Anti Federalist Papers" a collection of articles written during the Ratification process that oppose the then new US Constitution, it is the Militia as a collection group that was the concern, not individual self defense. It is concern about the Militia that kept getting mentioned and discussed NOT self defense. Thus it was concern for the Militia that drove the wording of the Second Amendment NOT self defense.

[hack89]

204. Protestants were disarmed by the government as part of an organized repression of civil liberties

as Mary Queen of Scott and King James tried to make England Catholic again. It was very simple - Catholics could carry arms but Protestants could not. The Protestant were disarm so they could not resist the Crown.

[Beta Male]

103. Agreed on all three conclusions

It is hopeless and sad, and it does make me sick.

[DrDan]

110. I can see how that can be interpreted to include open and/or concealed carry on campuses, in bars,

in national parks, walmarts, and safeways. etc

Seems to be a logical train of thought.

(I really don't need the sarcasm thing, do I?)

[samsingh]

122. kick

[colsohlibgal]

140. It Is Maddening

The complete lack of understanding the context of this Amendment in relation to the time it was written is astonishing.

There was no standing army back then and it was a different world.

But even back then they mention good regulation. The sane among us know sociopathic individuals like the malcontent who struck yesterday should never be able to buy a gun legally.

Solid regulation will not completely stop events like yesterday - but it would severely reduce the carnage.

We must stay engaged and match the intensity of the crazy gun zealots, we must act ASAP!

[Mike Nelson]

160. The NRA is clearly opposed to the...

...2nd Amendment. "Well Regulated" is so important, it starts the sentence.

[blackspade]

167. The money quote:

"But Sandy Hook was a turning point for me. If Americans don't give a shit about 20 little kids being gunned down, I don't see how a TV crew on a live broadcast will make a dent."

[ecstatic]

181. "It's hopeless and it's sad and it makes me sick."

+ infinity. That's exactly how I feel.

[jonno99]

188. "Well Regulated" = "Well Trained". Govt. regulations - especially federal - were almost

non-existent at that time (there was no EPA, OSHA, IRS, EEOC, DOL, etc, etc.).

So it's pretty safe to conclude that "well regulated" was not about govt. rules controlling firearms.

So insert "well-trained" (or "well-equipped&quot and the amendment makes perfect sense - especially when you add the last section: "...the right of the people..."

"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."

[happyslug]

200. You are ignoring the main book of Regulation, Von Stuben's "Blue Book".

Von Sturben, after arriving in Valley Forge and getting the US Army up to Prussian training level, wrote his "Blue Book" on the regulations on how the Army should be organized and formed. He covered things like if a man is sick and dies, the bed sheet he slept on was to be boiled and the straw in the bed was to be burned NOT reused. It also covered what flag went where in formation and the firing procedure of each company. These were all important in that time period.

George Washington thought so highly of the Blue Book that he ordered it Published so everyone could buy one and form their militia units along its lines. In my opinion, that book is the type of regulations Congress was looking at when they used the term "Well Regulated" i.e. something the complied with standard military doctrine. If the First Congress wanted "Well Trained" that term was known and would have been used, that the Congress used the term "Well Regulated" implies all Congress wanted was that the Militia be formed up the same way as regular Army units and use the same fighting doctrine as the regular army units.

[jonno99]

201. Thanks for an informative response. It seems then that the phrase "well ORDERED" would

be closer in meaning to the original intent, rather than the idea that the 2A was about "regulating...the people".

[HassleCat]

205. I agree with you

I believe the "well regulated militia" clause is very important for a couple reasons.

It ties the 2nd Amendment to Article 1. “The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions...” Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. The problem is, the ide of the militia has been interpreted by the courts to mean everybody capable of using a weapon. Thus, gun owners claim, "We are the militia because we own firearms," and the courts back them up. I think there is enough wiggle room in there to restrict the type and number of weapons a person can own, but I would be laughed out of court on that one. In my opinion, many of the people who describe themselves as "the militia" would be completely useless in a crisis. If they were called to defend their fellow citizens, they would only do so if it satisfied their political criteria. What do you think would happen if this "militia" were called to defend black people against a police department that wanted to shoot them down? What would happen if we had a repeat of the civil rights crisis, and "the militia" were asked to escort black children to integrate public schools? What would happen if President Obama, known to many of "the militia" as "the ni33er in chief," tried to call them up to defend the country?

If we were serious abut the militia clause, we would demand every citizen who owns firearms show up once a year for training in militia procedure. We would know how to contact them, what kind of weapons they would bring, what useful skills they had in other areas, etc. In my view, this would be perfectly legal, because we would not register their guns, or even make a list of all the guns they have. We certainly would not take away any of their guns. In fact, if they were inadequately armed, we might send them home with a better weapon and a supply of ammunition, the way they do in Switzerland. The way I look at it, owning firearms is a very bold extension of individual rights, and it carries some obligations.

[sarisataka]

213. You bring up some interesting points

- partial correction, the courts have determined the Militia Act of 1903 which identifies the 'unorganized militia' is sufficient to meet the militia criteria. Over and above that, they have determined their is a right to arms disconnected from the militia.

-as you point out, the militia is a body of the people. Could our Selective Service Registration be considered the list of our militia? Now we make no demands beyond registration, which brings me to my last point

- the Constitution gives Congress authority to call forth the militia with the President as CinC. If Congress abdicates their militia responsibility does that remove the right from the People.
For illustration- we set elections based on the Constitution and other laws. Say Congress refuses to provide funds for the elections and the states do not pick up the tab either. Do the people then lose the right to vote?

ludicrous you say?

But Article 1 Section 8 says

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

separate from the "authority to raise and support armies". If arms ownership is connected to the militia and Congress is not fulfilling their duty as mandated they are illegally abrogating a right as much as if they refused to hold elections.

[ericson00]

212. we need to reform the second amendment

the wording of it makes so grammatical sense. It has an incomplete subordinate clause at the beginning. It should instead be; "All law abiding citizens of majority age who have not been convicted of a felony have the right to bear small handheld firearms. The federal government will take appropriate steps to ensure such persons are not a danger to themselves or others via a federally executed background check and 5 day waiting period." It is that simple!!

While some advocated eliminating all handguns, its not gonna happen. Near 40% of American households own guns.

[brentspeak]

214. The word "militia" also seems to escape the NRA-types

The Founders crafted the 2nd Amendment specifically for the purpose of empowering citizen militias (which no longer really exist), not for any other reason. There's no room to debate or speculate on this matter, either; the 1st Congress made this crystal clear in the wording of the amendment itself -- one of the very few amendments which actually self-contains an explanatory reason for the amendment's existence.

[Hekate]

215. 101st Rec. That phrase jumped out & smacked me in the face the first time I read the Bill of Rights

You wade through the archaic language, which isn't nearly as hard to read as the English in the King James Bible.

The Second Amendment, the All-Holy Second Amendment, seems to me to be referring to something on the order of the State National Guard. Well-regulated.

For an "originalist" Constitutional scholar like Antonin Scalia, one would hope (but hope in vain) that he would insist that any personal weaponry would be limited to a flintlock rifle.

[Angry Dragon]

217. kick

I also like the words WELL REGULATED

[SoapBox]

218. Never had a gun...never will have a gun.

I think the fetish crowd need some mental health help.

[Dems to Win]

222. The 2nd Amendment must be watered daily with the blood of innocents

Guns are America's Moloch, the god to whom we make blood sacrifices. Guns are Americans 'The Lottery,' a sacred ritual that must be continued, with everyone hoping they won''t draw the short stick, but unable to stop the bloody tradition.

An excellent, sad, and hopeless article from Gary Wills:

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/dec/15/our-moloch/

As long as there's an America, it will be awash in guns. As you say, if Americans can bear the slaughter of 20 first graders, there is absolutely nothing that will cause Americans to stop worshiping firearms.

[moondust]

223. At the time 2A was passed:

1. I think most Americans were either farmers themselves or in the business of supporting farmers--not exactly a high-speed, high-stress economy loaded with manipulative messaging to "do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?"

2. I don't think mental health diagnosis and treatment were too advanced at the time, possibly because the low-stress economy didn't do much to screw up people's heads and emotions.

3. In an attempt to knock down the "primitive musket technology" argument, some point out the existence of the rapid-fire Girandoni air rifle at the time. I doubt it had much impact on the discussion due to very low civilian circulation. The more popular Henry rifle came along in the 1860s. That's probably when 2A should have either been repealed or severely restricted. Only heaven knows how many good lives and limbs would have been saved as a result.

[beevul]

224. Flawed premise: The bill of rights restricts only government. N/T

[randys1]

228. Yep, if we just read it in english, round up all guns and put them in well regulated militias

you wouldnt even need to arm most cops, at that point.

Guns are mostly a toy for men to play with, it is time they give up their toy

[Sam_Fields]

232. It's impossible to delete or change the 2nd amendment

We are just going to have to accept that gun ownership is a right and there is nothing that can be done about it. The courts just ruled yesterday that undocumented immigrants have a right to own a gun also. If you want to live in a country that controls gun ownership then you will have to immigrate there. n/t

[sarisataka]

235. Au contraire

it is very possible, though only one Amendment has ever been repealed and no Amendment has ever reduced rights.