I no longer give two f*cks about your 2nd Amendment rights.

[kpete]

I no longer give two f*cks about your 2nd Amendment rights.

By Colorado is the Shiznit
Thursday Dec 03, 2015 12:00 AM PST


Stick a fork in me, I’m done.

?1449093212

FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE REPUBLICANS, FOR ASSURING THAT WE DON’T HAVE ANY DECENT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY, YOU COMPLETE MOUTH-BREATHING DEGENERATES!

What is wrong with the United States?! Fuck it if I know, but I’ll tell you this right now: no one’s Second Amendment right precedes my family’s right to live.

If you want to take that away from me, or any other United States citizen, truly — you can go screw yourselves. I don’t care. Your supposed “right” to keep and bear arms does not distinguish my 15-year-old daughter’s right to be a goddamned cheerleader at her school. I don’t care what you say, because it will never matter. The right to already-birthed life should eclipse anyone who wants to do harm to another living soul.

In short, the right to kill people should never supersede the right of any family to live and grow.

And to anyone who thinks differently? Fuck off. I don’t care to hear from you, ever.


more rant:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/3/1456301/-I-no-longer-give-two-f-cks-about-your-2nd-Amendment-rights

[Spitfire of ATJ]

1. Claiming owning a gun is about "freedom" is like claiming owning an SUV is about "freedom".

[yeoman6987]

104. Yet nothing was done on 2009. Why? Big time lost opportunity.

[Kingofalldems]

148. Once again, thanks for your concern.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

163. It's like the study where congress believes their districts are more conservative than they are.

[bettyellen]

135. These people feel the same way about cheap gas. It's their god given right.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

167. Lately they believe it's their god given right to kill if they're scared.

[bettyellen]

172. Well, it is in Florida these days. I thought it was in South Africa too, but apparently a panel of

judges has decided otherwise today. Amazed.

[leftofcool]

2. I have never in my life been an advocate for mass confiscation but...................

[Buzz Clik]

8. I turned the corner about a year ago.

It's not what I want, but it's what we need.

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. And I'd argue you still shouldn't be.

Not necessarily because disarmament is an unworthy goal (although as a physically small, weak person, I don't take it as a given that total disarmament is a good idea), but because it's difficult to envision a scenario in which confiscation could actually be carried out without massive loss of life and disruption to society. The cost could easily vastly outweigh the gain.

[mwrguy]

17. mass confiscation is the only real solution

Everything else is just a bandaid.

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in!"

[951-Riverside]

58. +1000

[Mojorabbit]

255. It worked so well with drugs and alcohol...nt

[CTyankee]

275. and your solution is...???

[Mojorabbit]

287. Let the CDC study gun violence. Break the Republican block on this.

I personally think it is due to an uptick in hate mongering that is bringing some of these people out. We can patch things up willy nilly but need good data to really do something about it that might work.

[CTyankee]

291. thank you. I think that is common sense. Also facts, which as we all know, are stubborn things...

I am wondering, tho, if we can ever "patch things up."

[jack_krass]

392. Here's a novel idea...

Deal with the underlying issue of why Americans want to kill each other?

You can melt down every single gun, but if you don't do this, people will find other ways to kill each other (maybe even more deadly than guns)

[CTyankee]

393. I don't think we really do. I think the availability of guns is the problem...if the gun is there

when you are depressed or angry or drunk, it only serves to exacerbate the situation. And that can result in a deadly shooting. And if a toddler decides to play with that loaded gun laying around, well...

[jack_krass]

403. Nope, look at switzerland

Nearly the same amount of guns per capita, boy nowhere near the carnage.

[CTyankee]

404. look at their population and their gun laws...I've been thru this discussion on DU before.

[christx30]

273. And what do you do when 500 to 1000 of them

say "no"? And when they gather at someone's property like the Bundy stand off, what happens there? Do you advocate raiding the place and risk killing hundreds of people, including law enforcement? The fact is that gun owning citizens outnumber the law enforcement community. In a straight up fight, you might see a victory by the cops. But it'll be a costly one.

[mwrguy]

277. Wait them out, get them a few at a time.

Most will roll over as soon they face real opposition.

For every Randy Weaver you'll get 10000 that just curl up into a ball and surrender.

[GGJohn]

306. You really believe that?

Most cops won't even enforce that, look at the compliance rates in states that have recently passed gun control laws, states like NY, CO, CT, CA, Los Angeles, etc, very low to zero.
So who are you going to get to do forced confiscation without the ensuing bloodshed?

Oh, and were are you going to put all these newly minted criminals?

[mwrguy]

322. So gun owners really aren't law abiding?

[GGJohn]

323. Would you, if you were a woman, (don't know your gender)

obey a law that banned abortions if you wanted one?

An unconstitutional law is a law that won't be obeyed or barely enforced by those tasked to enforcing it.

[mwrguy]

325. Who has been touting "law abiding abortion owners"?

I keep hearing "law abiding gun owners" used as some sort of talisman.

[GGJohn]

327. I asked you a question,

if abortions were banned tomorrow, and as a woman, if you were one, would you obey such a law if you wanted one?

You probably would not, an unconstitutional law is just that, and there would be widespread civil disobedience against such a law.

[passiveporcupine]

330. The fact is that gun owning citizens outnumber the law enforcement community.

Yeah, but most of them aren't crazy. If we offered a buy back program like Australia, and rules that allow some guns for some purposes, I think we'd be taking a big step forward. And I think the majority of gun owners would go along with it peacefully.

[EX500rider]

405. "If we offered a buy back program like Australia"

lets see, about 300,000,000 firearms x say $400 avg per firearm= $120,000,000,000 That's a 120 billion dollars.

[passiveporcupine]

406. Aussies did not give up all their guns.

The 1996 "National Firearms Buyback Scheme" took 660,959[2] long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles. Because the Australian Constitution requires that the Commonwealth may only take private property in return for "just compensation," the Government increased the Medicare Levy, from 1.5% to 1.7% of income, for one year to finance compensation. The buyback was predicted to cost A$500 million

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

They paid for it with taxes in one year. We could too.

And part of the program was to not be able to buy many of those types again in the future. We need to do that too.

The payments from the Commonwealth were conditional on the States and Territories introducing firearms laws and regulations consistent with the National Firearms Agreement, though some inconsistencies remain. No licences for self-defense are allowed under these laws.

[GGJohn]

304. So we can be assured that you'll volunteer to be on the confiscation teams?

Or will you depend on others with firearms to do your dirty work?

[mwrguy]

321. Do you put out house fires?

If not, then you have no business thinking we should have a fire department.

[GGJohn]

409. So I'll take that as a no,

you'll depend on others with firearms to do the job you advocate for but won't do.

[passiveporcupine]

407. Are you projecting?

[GGJohn]

408. Projecting what?

[passiveporcupine]

410. the way you think people will react to having their guns taken away?

Is that the way you would react?

There will be some resistance...it's been drilled into the people for too long by the likes of LaPierre that no one will (or even should) take their guns without a fight.

"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"

But if conversation starts to change (and it is changing...more people are outraged every day and want to see change), we can change attitudes, and most people really don't want to die or go to jail.

Do you think the majority of gun owners in Australia gave up their guns happily?

[Left2Tackle]

342. They're doing just the opposite

"Black Friday shoppers — put off by crowds, hitting the Internet, perhaps fearing terrorism — came out in fewer numbers this past weekend. Yet the lack of enthusiasm for standing in line in dark parking lots did not prevent a historic spike in firearm background checks on Nov. 27, when 185,345 were processed — a record."


"“This was an approximate 5% increase over the 175,754 received on Black Friday 2014,” Stephen Fischer, the FBI’s chief of multimedia productions, wrote to USA Today. “The previous high for receipts were the 177,170 received on 12/21/2012? — a week after Adam Lanza killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/02/black-friday-saw-most-federal-gun-background-checks-ever-processed-in-a-single-day/

[d_legendary1]

268. Sure! Legitimize the gun nut argument

What can possibly go wrong?

[randys1]

3. This is what it will take, sadly.

People will have to become so outraged that NOTHING else matters.

[Rex]

4. I don't really understand why the 2nd amendment is so important to hunters.

Doesn't apply to them and they could still keep their hunting rifles.

[hack89]

5. What if you decide they can't keep them after all?

What protects their right?

Who does the 2A apply to?

[AllyCat]

10. If somehow people lose their hunting rifles in all this (which I don't think will happen)

it will be worth all the humans that won't be hunted. I'm okay with that.

But it won't happen. 2A applies to a well-regulated militia. And if the daily mass shootings, accidental shootings, domestic disturbance shootings, police shootings, and all the other shootings that end, ruin, forever change, or disrupt human lives is our "well-regulated militia", then I'm done with it. Repeal the fu*king thing.

[hack89]

11. The 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

According to the Supreme Court, the Democratic party platform, and President Obama.

[AllyCat]

14. Now that lots of people are dying because the right to keep and bear arms

seems to mean that people can lose their $hit one day and shoot everyone they see, it's time to repeal it. No one needs those things.

They just want them.

[Old Codger]

67. Actually

I am a gun owner, I also am for really comprehensive gun control. The repugs who block anything that goes towards that goal are as guilty of this shit as the actual perpetrators. No one is going to go door to door and take guns away from anyone as long as they are legally entitled to own one... Hunters won't lose their guns, law abiding citizens who pass a pretty tight background check won't lose their guns. Anyone who does not have that right, who cannot pass that check should not only be denied the right but if attempting to buy a gun should be jailed ...

I have strong feeling that a goodly part of the crazy nuts who think we are in danger of the government taking our guns away are victims of a concerted attempt by the rabid right wing,abetted by the manufacturers, they made a fortune every time the rumors went flying about how Obama was going to take their guns away... millions were then spent in a buying frenzy....I have seen it and heard it all over...

[narnian60]

377. +100

[Rex]

15. Where in the 2A does it say individual rights?

[hack89]

26. "The right of the people "

Where else in the Bill of Rights does that not signify an individual right? The Bill of Rights are all individual rights- that is why it was added in the first place - to strictly limit government powers.

[Rex]

28. The people that form well regulated militia...where does it say individual rights?

Funny for a government with limited powers, it sure does what it wants to anyway. But whatever, there are no words that say 'individual rights' in the 2A. Gun folks just want it to be that way and the NRA keeps it that way.

[hack89]

36. Ok

Heller is the law of the land.

[Rex]

38. Doesn't matter if you don't like it.

That is what the 2A says...sorry.

[hack89]

41. The law agrees with me

I have nothing to be sorry about.

[Rex]

44. Sure sure your sadz says otherwise.

The law says 'militias' so no you are wrong. Sorry.

[hack89]

45. Heller is the law of the land

Do you understand how the Supreme Court works?

[Rex]

47. I am just telling you what the 2A says, no need to get mad.

Have you ever read it?

[hack89]

53. And the Supreme Court says you are wrong.

Heller will be used in every court in America to interpret the 2A.

Have you read Heller?

[Rex]

57. Well that is the literal wording of the 2A.

To bad.

[hack89]

64. So what. That is totally irrelevant when it comes to passing laws

If you can't pass the gun control laws you want because of Heller then I can't understand what you are crowing about.

[Rex]

69. Crowing? See I knew it you have a big sadz at the literal meaning of the 2A.

Too bad right?

[hack89]

77. The Bill of Rights protects individual right. End of story.

Why would I be sad because you disagree with me?

[Rex]

82. Why would you be snarky because the 2A agrees with me literally?

Strange.

[hack89]

86. ok. nt

[Rex]

89. .

[Squinch]

137. Scalia wrote it. It was dissented by every reasonable person on the court.

Nice company you are keeping. Heller needs to be overturned with legislation.

And before you tell me what a scofflaw it makes me that I don't have any respect for the Heller decision, know that if you do I'll be asking you about your thoughts about Citizens United.

In the end, your hobby is not worth a daily massacre.

[Rex]

161. Scalia is the moron that threw a federal election.

I could care less what an ideologue sitting on a bench thinks.

[Squinch]

173. Exactly, but it is really the Heller decision that all these morons are hiding behind

when they talk about their 2A rights.

Heller is recent, and like other horrible, deadly SC decisions, it is able to be overridden.

[Rex]

184. Very much so, has not a thing to do with the 2A actual meaning.

Then again how often in history does perception rule America and not reality? Some of the blame has to be on Congress, that ignore a large majority when they have a grievance. Government must have room for redress. I find it ironic people calling out against tyranny, when the majority wants gun control. I don't see anyone arguing against it but the NRA lobby.

[hack89]

182. That's fine

Just pointing that any gun control has to be implemented within the context of Heller. That's all.

[Rex]

186. And the people must have a right to redress.

So your point is moot.

[hack89]

191. What does that even mean? nt

[Squinch]

212. No, actually it doesn't. Just as Emancipation didn't have to be implemented

within the context of Dredd Scott.

[hack89]

219. Emancipation took a Constitutional amendment

Which rendered Dredd Scott moot.

[Squinch]

220. I'm sure you think you have a point.

[hack89]

224. Heller is the law of the land and cannot be ignored.

That's all.

[Squinch]

227. So you have said. Dredd Scott was the law of the land too. So?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Heller overturned precedent

it was just as bad as a few other historic decisions that the court had to overturn later on.

I think Heller will be overturned if the right case gets to the United States Supreme Court and we have a slight change in personnel. I mean one or two.

[hack89]

74. What precedent?

Not like there was a lot of case law on the matter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. You should read a lot more into the case law

I would recommend a law library. But until Heller the USSC did pretty much go into the idea of a well regulated, which Heller threw on it's nose.

For the moment I will start you here. Non technical and a nice little essay on upcoming (maybe) challenges.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/23/the-case-that-could-refine-the-2nd-amendment.html

[hack89]

118. Your link makes no mention of cases prior to Heller

What precedence did Heller overturn?

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. As I said, I recommend a law library

I am not in the business of convincing a gunner at this point.

My town has a public law library, that the County runs. We also have a few law schools. I recommend you make yourself familiar with both. As things stand. a CHALLENGE will come and the COURT will will sooner later revisit HELLER, and it could not happen soon enough.

[Rex]

165. Waste of time nadin.

They depend on THE guy that threw a federal election in 2000. They lost their case and don't understand the law as it is literally written.

So you are trying to discuss something that is foreign to their understanding.

Scalia...lol...oh the irony.

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. I got to give it to Scalia, he does write well though

I read more court cases than any sane person outside of law practice should... so his quotes are usually easy to digest... the latest have to do with mass incarceration. By the way, I like Kennedy's style. He is almost prophetic at times.

[Rex]

177. Oh yes! Nothing against his penmanship.

He is a hypocritical ideological opportunist.

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. But he writes clearly,

he should think of a career in media after he retires. He has the 6th grade level down pat. (Which is the level of the NYT currently. Sadly it is going down as well). I am positive he can leave the legal terms out that have to be done from time to time

[Rex]

217. Wow at one time it was 8th grade.

I don't read those garbage mags. Years without TV/cable/tabloid trash has made an unbelievable difference in my outlook.

[nadinbrzezinski]

218. I write RSD at a higher level

but I have respect for my readers.

[Rex]

221. That is rare, you don't insult their intelligence like the M$M-Hearst.

Too many today need to be spoon fed information.

[nadinbrzezinski]

225. Well, right now we seeing the MSM engage in quite a bit of speculation

the state department is confirming what the FBI told us earlier in the day... I am like WOW... that is not new information... that is old information.

OY

[Rex]

230. Well it is okay for reporters to speculate, yet on DU that is baaaad.

I think people here forget this is the peanut gallery. The M$M is the big leagues for second-third and forth guessing. It should be normal here and forbidden in reporting minus honest inaccuracies. Silly stuff.

[nadinbrzezinski]

237. I am not speculating anywhere

and when I gave some hard facts, here, I self deleted.

It is weird.

And I should go back to mass incarceration... that is far more critical policy wise than a fast moving story.

[Rex]

239. I meant Hollywood pundits. CNN\Foxnews the alphabet outlets.

They are all show and no go.

[nadinbrzezinski]

249. I know

I am just pointing to the weird dynamic here as well.

It is odd. I am personally starting to realize how distant I am becoming of this site and it's denizens

By the way. Thomas Roberts speculating on the tv to fill air time is far more problematic. Doing source work, sure. I get it. But sheer speculation on the rumor mill, which even the chief shot down in the morning is craze town. All to try to scoop people...ah ratings.

[Rex]

251. Ratings...the original formula still works better than cold hard facts.

"If it bleeds...it leads."

[nadinbrzezinski]

261. And we know WHO to blame, a local Miami affiliate

It is so bad that stations these days "station" crews around town waiting for the if it bleeds it leads. Hell, yesterday there was horrific crash two miles from here. I half jockingly told my husband, want to scoop the rest?

We just don't, literally I have to bump into an accident, or have one happen around me for it to make it to the paper. Yeah, yeah I posted the there is an accident on the offramp, major, they are closing lanes... on FB, mostly since I know people read that and at times use it to AVOID the traffic mess 

[hack89]

175. Can't back up your claim? Ok. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

183. I can, but even if i gave it to you in the actual

case number as entered in the Supreme Court ledger, not just the name of the case, it would be immaterial to you. So I shan't waste my time, which is exactly what this is.

[hack89]

185. Bullshit

There is no case number to give me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

196. There are but it really would not matter to you, so here is a

hint, the earliest cases started in the 1840s, there are two major cases after the civil war, Then there are a couple more in the early part of the 20h century... one you might even be familiar with since most gun fans tend to be... then there is at least one more before heller in the second part of the 20th century.

Then there is the whole slew of lower cases involving gun control at the state level, most of them confined to the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries. That area of law is starting to pick up steam again, but very slowly.

There are anywhere between 10 and 20 that are kind of major, depending on who you read, that mention the 2nd amendment. Though it did not play a direct role.

As I said, I recommend a legal library and a few law books. And I am not the one to teach you or take you by the hand. Suffice it to say, Heller actually broke some major ground (as Scalia would like to put it), or broke precedent... depending who you read.

[hack89]

200. You talking about the Jim Crow rulings used to disarm blacks

After the reconstruction? Jim Crow had a strong legal foundation - do you really want to hang your hat on that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. Becuase now I know you do not know of the 1930s case

thank you

[hack89]

207. Miller? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

209. Which is very relevant

as I said, either Heller broke ground or broke precedent.

And we will see it being challenged and likely overturned sooner or later, and I am of the mind that it better be sooner than later.

[hack89]

215. A case where Miller and his lawyer's did not appear in court?

Because he was dead? The ruling that involved the legality of a short barrel shot gun?

[nadinbrzezinski]

222. We shall revisit all this

and I hope soon. You are not going to change my mind on this and it does not matter how the court rules, especially if it completely or partially overturns Heller, you will not change your views either So we are wasting our time.

Suffice it to say, it shall come. I suspect not in this term or the next, but in the next 20 years for sure. So I should be alive to see it. And I wish you are too. See I am nice that way.

[LokiandMala]

344. Well.

There is this one.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms...

Right of "individuals".

Is that where you were going?

I get it. Guns kill people. So does alcohol. I have had both family and friends killed in alcohol related accidents witnessed an alcohol related accident that killed two people. Why are we not talking seriously about alcohol control? Motor vehicle accidents kill approximately as many people as gun violence. Overdose of illegal drugs kill approximately the same number.

But guns are bad. No, a lot of things are bad and a lot of things kill people. Guns just get the most attention.

[Squinch]

176. Nadin, I often disagree with you, but you are absolutely right about this.

[Squinch]

210. Didn't you just tell me you don't hide behind the 2A?

[thucythucy]

303. So is Citizens United.

Are we supposed to shut up about corporate money in politics because Scalia & Co. said the first amendment means money = speech?

Money = speech is now the law of the land.

We need a president who will appoint justices who will vote to overturn Citizens United AND Heller. When that happens, the law of the land will make far more sense.

[hack89]

305. What laws could you pass without Heller that you can't pass now?

What exactly is the legal impact of Heller on gun control?

[thucythucy]

308. Wasn't Heller cited when the courts threw out hand gun restrictions

passed in DC and Chicago? Laws like that, then.

Have you seen Bernie Sanders latest on guns? From my quick reading, I saw mandatory three day waiting period, universal background checks, ban on assault weapons, make gun trafficking a federal crime, refuse right to purchase to those on the federal terrorist watch list, no guns for those with a history of domestic violence, among other proposals. I'm assuming you're good with all of those?

Edited to add: here's the link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251871627

This all sounds good to me.

[hack89]

309. Heller says you can't ban handguns kept in one's house

That is all.

[thucythucy]

310. Well that's a pretty enormous loophole right there.

So if I'm a convicted batterer, or on the terrorist watch list, or have a history of massively serious mental illness, I can keep all the guns I want as long as I keep them in my house?

I personally see no problem with a municipality wanting to ban handguns, even if they're kept in your house. If Heller gets overturned, then this will be possible, yes?

Lots of Supreme Court decisions get reviewed, many overturned. I'm looking forward to some sanity returning regarding our gun culture.

And what about the rest of it? Do you support Senator Sanders' proposals?

[hack89]

311. No.

There are plenty of ways you can lose your right to own guns. What Heller says is that if you can legally own a gun then you can own one.

[thucythucy]

312. But no answer to my other questions? nt.

[hack89]

313. Ok.

Don't support an AWB but that is a moot point because no proposed AWB is retroactive so I can keep my
rifles anyway.

The terror list is a secret, inaccurate list compiled by the government. I oppose the idea that one can lose civil rights through a secret government list. Make the terror list transparent and add due process so only a judge can remove the right to own guns and I will support it.

[thucythucy]

314. That sounds good to me.

I suppose there might be a reason, in very particular cases, for government to want a portion of the watch list to be secret--for instance, if they know a terrorist is about to try to enter the country, and want to apprehend him or her, and don't want to tip the suspect off as to their impending arrest. But that should be cleared by a judge, and apply only to that particular instance and for a very limited period of time. It should absolutely be the exception, not the rule. Otherwise we're in agreement on this aspect.

[Waldorf]

318. One of the reasons a lot of people don't care for the no fly list is when it was revealed that

Ted Kennedy was on it. For him it was quite easy to remove his name. A regular John/Jane Doe would have a much tougher time removing their name.

[thucythucy]

355. I remember that.

That was during Bush II, wasn't it? I remember wondering if it was political payback by Cheney. Brought back memories of Nixon's "enemies list."

[Hekate]

95. Also it says "well regulated"

I always thought the State National Guards took care of that, and they store their weapons in an armory.

[Rex]

98. Shhhhh...don't tell them about the Guard or Reserves.

You are 100% correct. The Guard is EXACTLY what the 2A means.

[TeddyR]

124. That's absolutely incorrect.

There is plenty of historical evidence that the "militia" meant every single able-bodied individual. For example, George Mason stated "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." And the Second Amendment certainly doesn't require service in a formal militia before the right to keep and bear arms is protected, no matter how much you want to twist it out of shape. If that were the case, the Second Amendment simply would read "the right to keep and bear arms is protected for every person who is an active militia member." Even then, it would protect the right of every individual, since according to Mason the militia is "the whole people."

And to your earlier point, the Second Amendment certainly protects an individual right. The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Apparently you think "the people" means everyone, in which case the Second Amendment still protects an individual right since everyone's right to keep and bear arms would be protected. Do you think that the Fourth Amendment's reference to the right of "the people" "to be secure in their persons" or the First Amendment's reference to the right of "the people" to peaceably assemble doesn't protect an individual right?

[Rex]

156. #129

You agree with me, I knew you would.

[Squinch]

198. So your "evidence" is the opinion of a guy from 250 years ago - a guy who refused to

sign and opposed the ratification of the Constitution, no less.

Then you give us your own opinion as if it were fact, and that's your other evidence.

As to your assumption that "the people" must mean the same thing in every place in the Constitution, there is no reason to believe that, any more than there is any reason to believe that "the State" means the same thing every time it is used. Clearly "the state" means very different things in different parts of the constituition, so there is no reason to assume "the people" means the same every place it is used.

And all that aside, there are slaughters every day now in the US. Are you seriously advocating keeping the current Scalia-defined interpretation of the VERY DEBATABLE text of the 2A that DIRECTLY leads to those slaughters?

And Teddy, you never answered my question: when you challenged me on how I would reduce gun deaths, I gave you a rather detailed description of my plan. I asked you to return the favor. You never replied. And then I asked again, and STILL you never replied. Could it be that you got nothing?

[chknltl]

284. NO. The refered to militias were used to keep the slaves in line.

Because the North had an anti-slavery history, the slave owners feared the North would place words in the Constitution to undermine the South's desire to continue using slaves. There were already militias in the slave states, had been for decades. These militias were used to keep the slaves 'in order'. By the slave states insistence of the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" in the 2A, they had their 'back door' in our Constitution preventing, (in the 2A's authors' view) the North from undermining slavery.

http://law.rwu.edu/story/bogus-slavery-and-2nd-amendment

[Rex]

286. Believe it or not, it was about more than one thing.

It is true.

[chknltl]

293. Perhaps but it's reason accdg. to it's authors

.... is well preserved in their own words. According to Thom Hartmann's own research into the authors own written words regarding the 2A, nowhere is it found that they intended those militias to be used otherwise.

[Rex]

295. The Founders were worried about the British coming back

does anyone around here read history books anymore? There were patriots and loyalists, the times were filled with tension and worry. I guess some here dream of 1777 and America the 'land of freedom and tranqulity' being a happy place like a Disney ending.

Sorry folks, that is just the way it was back then. Take it up with historians.

[AtheistCrusader]

223. State and National Guards didn't exist when the 2nd Amendment was ratified.

Towns did maintain armories of things like crew-served weapons. Like cannons. That's why the 2nd Amendment has never been held to apply to things classified as Destructive Devices, and large-bore weapons (A line was somewhat arbitrarily drawn at .50 caliber) like howitzers. It's also why machine guns made after 1986 cannot be obtained by Joe Public, and that limitation has not been found a violation of the 2nd Amendment by the SC.

'well regulated' doesn't mean what you think, in this case.

[librarylu]

54. So what?

If you live in a neighborhood that's so dangerous you have to have a handgun I'd be in favor of a government program to help you get out.

[hack89]

60. I don't own guns for self defense - I live in a safe town

I shoot purely for recreation.

[librarylu]

385. How difficult would it be.....

....to find another hobby?

[hack89]

387. Don't see the need.

People like me are not the problem.

[Herman4747]

259. Something that Scalia, Machine Gun Sammy Alito,...

Chimpy-appointed John Roberts, Silent Clarence Thomas, and Al-Gore-be-damned Anthony Kennedy came up with is supposed to forever be your idea of sound legal jurisprudence?

And still THE CARNAGE GOES ON BECAUSE OF THE GUN WORSHIPPERS.

Your selfish property rights do NOT supersede my right to live.

Get that? Got that? Good.

[hack89]

272. You do understand that Heller allows strict gun control?

Everything you want is perfectly constitutional. Scalia says that in Heller.

[Old Codger]

71. At the time

That the amendments were written the "militia" consisted of any able bodied male over a certain age, the requirement to be included was that you had to own a gun.
The phrase well regulated referred to training not to control by the government. You cannot have the word "people" mean something different in one amendment than ti does in another.

[Rex]

75. Exactly! The word 'people' and 'individual' are not the same word at all!

THANK YOU! And I assure you, if the Founders had wanted the word 'individual' in there somewhere...it would be there.

[Old Codger]

122. Don't thank me

You are putting a different interpretation of what I intended here, I do not say that the word people an the word individual are any different at all, had I intended that I would have so stated.... The word people means all people and the word right means exactly as it says... ALL PEOPLE have that RIGHT .. not assigning that right to a particular group of people but to all people period...

If this is such a great deal overall then they need to get an amendment to repeal that particular right...They definitely need to put a stop to the proliferation of weapons to people who are unbalanced as the terrorists we have seen using them lately...

Also need to do something to put part of the blame where it belongs and that is on the attempts to incite this type of action and hiding behind the skirts of "political" free speech.... Inciting to violence is also against the law..

[Rex]

162. Nope. Re-read the 2A.

Read #129.

[Old Codger]

267. OK well

You have the right or interpret it as you please, but you are pretty well mistaken in that interpretation,,... You are in fact stating an opinion as fact...

I have attempted to have this discussion many times over the years, both here and other places, you are set in your views on it and as am I so this is once again the last of my part of it ....

[Rex]

279. Wrong. Not my fault 4 people out of so many in this thread 'don't get it'.

And I doubt they will ever get it. Learn something about history of this country and get back with me. Or not, it really doesn't matter all 4 or 5 of you can waste each others time ignoring facts and the truth.

[Old Codger]

297. OK

BYE

[AtheistCrusader]

147. The militia is formed OF the people in times of need.

That's why the thing protects the people's right to remain armed.

Substitute 'Equipped and Prepared' for 'regulated' and you'll understand the original context. It's more obvious in the plain English wording of the various state constitutions. This is mine, ratified in 1889;

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

These things changed in meaning or clarity over time, depending on the factors in play. That last bit about an 'armed body of men' was a reference to the 'Blackwater' of that time; the Pinkerton's, who were used like a private army, and busted up various Labor organizations.


That prefatory clause in the 2nd Amendment does not restrict the scope of The People. It's a 'whereas', that explains the goal; that the states can raise an equipped militia at any time. To fulfill the goal, the second half is the 'what'; the people remain armed.


It may be that we, as a people, don't feel that is necessary anymore. There's a process to remove or alter the 2nd amendment, just like we repealed prohibition. Until that is done, the 2nd amendment is the law of the land, and while it is not immune to reasonable regulation, it does guarantee a civil, individual right to access arms.

Repeal/altering an amendment is a big nut. Hard to crack. However, there is a LOT more we CAN do to regulate firearms without crossing the boundary of what the 2nd amendment protects. Just like speech isn't unlimited by way of the 1st amendment. You can't incite, threaten, etc.

Lots we can do. But the 'militia' angle is a dry hole. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Rex]

155. #129

Don't feel like typing that out again.

[AtheistCrusader]

199. Post 129 is factually wrong on a number of points. For instance, we have a national guard and a

state guard. Guess what our state guard is?

The founders very much meant a personal, individual right. Has that finally become obsolete? Perhaps. But that doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.

[Rex]

234. I said that was the original intent, thanks for agreeing with me.

Again...go re-read #129. You might get it this time.

[AtheistCrusader]

246. No, you are wrong.

You also may have missed that non-slaveholding states reflect the same language in their own later-ratified constitutions.

An individual right was absolutely intended, or they would not have used 'The People'.

I'm down with a conversation on 'ok, where do we go from here', because amendments are not sacrosanct, or anything like that. But please stop attempting to misconstrue history.

[Rex]

280. Yeah well your opinion is not my problem.

And your ignorance of history is not my problem either. 4 or 5 of you on this thread are wrong and the rest are right. Give it up or not. You few are wrong and need to stop pretending the 2A history is what you want it to be. Thanks.

[AtheistCrusader]

307. You are wildly uninformed on this topic.

Even if the 2nd amendment evaporated overnight, my personal individual right to arms is protected by my state constitution, explicitly. (And that would be respected by way of the 9th and 10th amendments)

You are so ridiculously wrong on this issue, it is sad.

But again, this is pointless noise, because it only informs the current state of laws/rights. We can change, anything. If you want it to stop being an individual right, there is a path to accomplish that if enough people agree. Certainly, high quality arguments can be made to curtail the right further, and I support many of those options.

None of that is helped if you want to misconstrue case law, state and federal law, and history.
You actually make any effort to improve gun control in this country, harder, because your claims can be shown to be false. Once proven, your argument for change, however noble the goal, is damaged.

[Eleanors38]

238. Rex picked up the wrong lure. He go bye-bye.

[AtheistCrusader]

248. Yeah, I get the feeling I'm talking to a wall, but hope springs eternal.

The worst of it is, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't limit or inform what we do from here forward. If there is will, we can change any provision of the Constitution. Already have.

[Rex]

278. See #129

Not wasting my time with people ignorant of history.

[whopis01]

257. It doesn't say the people that form a well regulated militia. n/t

[Left2Tackle]

343. Don't shoot the messenger...

"The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties,"


http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

[Gore1FL]

79. As long as those people are "well-regulated"

according to the actual verbiage of the Amendment.

[hack89]

88. The 2A does not stop strict gun control

Even Scalia says that.

[Gore1FL]

120. I recognize that

But congress, the NRA, and the mouth-breathing open-carry people don't seem to grasp it.

[Squinch]

170. You are actually the third person I have seen using almost the same wording to make the

same point. Did you guys have a meeting or something?

To address your point, all you are really saying is that the second amendment exists. We know it exists. It is only a Scalia-written SC decision that has made it the murder-permit that you hide behind to maintain your hobby in the face of all these massacres.

That SC decision sucks, and is wrong. Let's think of other SC decisions that suck and are wrong: Dredd Scott is one. SC decisions can be overridden, and it's time for Heller to be overridden. Just like Dredd Scott was.

So your argument doesn't really say anything.

[hack89]

189. The 2A does not stop strict gun control

Everything you want short of a total ban is perfectly constitutional. AWBs, registration, UBCs - nothing stopping you from making them law.

Scalia says that in Heller.

Time to stop blaming the 2A.

[Squinch]

201. And time for gun nuts to stop hiding behind it.

[hack89]

202. I don't hide behind it.

No need to

[Squinch]

204. Well bully for you.

Eta: though in this very thread, you do hide behind the 2A.

[hack89]

228. The 2A does not stop strict gun control

Said many times. It is not the 2A stopping gun control

[Squinch]

229. So then you should probably stop hiding behind it.

[hack89]

231. ok. nt

[Squinch]

235. Great!

[lancer78]

347. it took the civil war

And 600,000 american deaths to overturn Dredd Scott. Deaths from gun violence has been reduced in half since the 90's. I do not want to see another civil war over weather people can bear arms when no matter what the yellow journalists want, gun violence is decreasing.

[Squinch]

351. I understand that those who are defending the idea that their hobby is worth a weekly

massacre are monstrously selfish. Let's just hope they are not demonic enough to let it get that far.

So tell me, would you fight in that war just to keep your toys?

[lancer78]

365. since I am banned by law

From owning a gun because of mental health issues, I have no dog in the fight.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

206. No, it doesn't. "the People" is the entire population, not individuals. "The People" have a...

...right to a well-regulated militia. We have that. It's called the National Guard. Each state has one.

[hack89]

211. So all the rights in the Bill of Rights that use that wording

are collective rights?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

214. The right is given to "the People" as a whole. It is manifest in our National Guard. Some day,

we will take your gunz. Someday, when all three branches are controlled by Democrats/Liberals/Sanity, we will take your gunz.

Tick-tock.

[beevul]

232. No. Just no.

The right is given to "the People" as a whole.

No. That's absolutely incorrect. The bill of rights gives no rights. Authorizes nothing.

The bill of rights serves as a means and a mechanism that restricts ONLY government, and grants no rights. That is in fact, exactly what it was intended to be and do. That's not opinion, that's fact.


It says as much, right here:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

[GGJohn]

316. LOL.

This is pure comedy gold.

How, pray tell, will you take our firearms?
And what will you do when Americans refuse to allow the likes of you to take our firearms?

[world wide wally]

348. Pardon the expression,

but FUCK your guns

[hack89]

350. I don't care what you think

Not if you refuse to engage like an adult.

[global1]

21. I Find It Interesting That Our 'Well-Regulated Militia' Hasn't Been Able To Stop These Mass....

shootings. What do we have a 'well-regulated militia' for?

[AllyCat]

22. That is part of what says they are not well-regulated.

Therefore, we need to get that part set up or abandon this dangerous and archaic "bill"

[Rex]

25. Agree, seems all these 'militia' groups are full of paranoid stormfront types that hate Obama

and wait desperately in their home (sitting their staring at the door...any minute now), clutching their rifle in hopes...er...dread of the Marxist Obama showing up to take away their guuuunnnsss!

[Tab]

12. No one says hunters shouldn't keep rifles

I'm from nothern New England. I know many (relatively) go hunting to provide for the winter. People do shoot deer, but they feed off that for the winter. I don't have a problem with that.

That said, you don't need an assault rifle to take down a deer. If nothing else, anything you scored would be inedible (due to gunshot).

What we need to restrict is large-capacity magazines and assault rifles based on them. I understand California has strict gun laws, but c'mon. Let's not die, folks.

[AllyCat]

18. Are you sure you are using all the correct terminology there Tab?

Because, if not, you know, your whole argument is just meaningless. Just let the gun lovers set it all up 'cuz they know the right words and all.

[sanatanadharma]

35. victims of gun violence do not lose moral authority by using wrong language

Ah yes!
The irrelevant gunners' claims that people who do not know a magazine* from a magazine* should shut up about the NRATERRORISTs in our midst.

The belief that conflict resolution by bullet is better than disarming this insanity IS a moral failure.
Defending guns, blaming victims, taking the gun to be the cure against the gun are examples of ethical insanity.

*A good magazine contains information and entertainment.
*A bad magazine contains bullets.
*Perhaps those who can't recognize a heart unless it is a target, should shut up in polite society.
*Certainly guns do not seem to be socially polite tools; designed solely for killing or practicing to kill or threatening to kill.

[AllyCat]

276. Excellent point about the magazine!

[Rex]

13. Militas, not individuals. If they want to form a rifle club there is no law against it.

Why would anyone decide that? The 2nd amendment is an outdated piece of law from centuries ago when we had to fight off bears etc to clear land for development.

[AllyCat]

20. And manage our property (slaves)

[Rex]

23. And 'push' Native Americans into smaller and smaller camps...er...reservations.

When people decided the law by how fast you could draw your gun. Why is it folks cannot leave the 19th century?

[jonno99]

48. Sorry - I must have missed it. When exactly did we solve the problem of tyranny and

lawlessness? The entire BOR is about the "individual" - no?

Unless you think the 1st amendment applies to the press only?

[Rex]

52. And how long ago was that and why is the wording of the 2A relevant to that time period?

You have the right to form militias so you can own a firearm...sorry if that bothers you so much. That is what the 2A says.

[jonno99]

93. You're missing the point - it is BECAUSE of tyranny and lawlessness (they feared NOT being free) -

that the 2a was included.

If anything it is needed even MORE today than ever before.

Consider Article 4:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses...". Is it just about a tyrannical govt. that the 4th amendment (and by extension the entire BOR) is concerned? If so, it seems then that you're free from the govt. busting into you house, but you're screwed if it is merely an individual intent on harming you - against whom you have no defense. Is that what you are suggesting?

[Rex]

96. Irony is dead. You purposely miss the point and the wording of the 2A.

Not my fault.

[jonno99]

100. I didn't "miss the point" - I simply disagreed with you. Did you purposely miss my point?

Or, is it your opinion that you are NOT entitled to be secure in your person & home?

[Rex]

103. The 1A promises me that. Did you know that?

You can disagree all you want to, but the 2A means what we call the National Guard in modern times. There is no 'individual' in there. Or are you saying the 1A is a lie?

[jonno99]

110. No, the 1A is not a lie. But don't you find it curious that an amendment concerning ONLY the

militia was tucked in amongst articles that speak specifically about individual rights?

Think about it: "Bill of Rights" - hmmm... does a "militia" need it rights protected? If so, why would it's rights be tucked into a list of enumerated individual rights? It doesn't make any sense to interpret it that way.

[Rex]

129. Yes and that is why we have a National Guard.

If the Founders wanted the word 'individual' in the 2A they would have put it in there. They were very good with wording. We have the 2A because the British came back in 1812 with a vengeance. That is recorded history.

Also like someone else said up thread, slave patrols and for many outposts as a posse comitatus. The key word is 'well-regulated', as stated first by the Founders that understood how stupid people can get.

Personally I don't care if target shooters or hunters have their firearms. My point is in modern times the 2A means the National Guard, which is there to protect us against the federal government. That is it's purpose. Call up citizen soldiers to quell federal tyranny.

You have your right to bear and keep firearms, join the National Guard. Or just be a hunter or sports enthusiast. Is that too hard? All this over your right to have a hobby or go hunting? Ridiculous, ludicrous, now the meaning is warped by groups like the NRA and preppers waiting in their fallout shelter.

The 1A promises us to be unconditional on our right to express ourselves in our own home in the case of self defense. The 2A has nothing to do with home defense. It did. I won't argue that.

[jonno99]

139. I agree that the founders were good with wording. I would argue too that they were good with

"structure".

Which is why I asked: why in the "Bill of (individual) Rights" would they include language - a discrete article/amendment - not directed to the individual, but to an entity - the militia? And it wasn't included at the end of the list or the beginning, but in the middle of a list of individual rights.

The flow (structure) of the list doesn't make sense if you include an entity along with individual rights.

[Herman4747]

368. As Long as the Interpretation is Reasonable...

...we don't have to give a damn about what people (slave-owning "Founders&quot thought centuries ago. Or do you advise Americans living 10,000 years from now that they need to vigilantly consider what those living millennia before them thought?

The Constitution is a living document, not a dead one.

[jonno99]

376. Sure - but by "living" what you mean is amendable. Nobody argues that. And whatever the personal

failings of the founders were, they created a pretty damn good document. Without over-turning that document many of the original failings were fixed: slaves were freed, women can vote, civil rights are guaranteed - regardless of x,y,z, etc, etc.

Point for me to another document that has endured so long - for the benefit of so many...

[TeddyR]

154. Wow

When you are wrong you are really wrong:

We have the 2A because the British came back in 1812 with a vengeance. That is recorded history.

The Second Amendment was adopted 20+ years before the War of 1812. From Wiki:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

And as Scalia explained in Heller:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right.

[Rex]

159. Scalia is a moron that threw a federal election.

Sorry if the literal meaning of the 2A is beyond your grasp. Not my fault. Re-read #129.

[TeddyR]

193. As I pointed out in response to 129

Your first premise (2A somehow based on a conflict that occurred 20+ years after the amendment was enacted) is completely, demonstrably and laughably incorrect, so I don't see why anyone should pay attention to the rest. At least you tried.

Again, read Heller. Just because you don't like Scalia doesn't make him wrong.

[Rex]

242. So you didn't understand that meaning at all? I figured as much.

Your ignorance of history is not my fault, go back and read it again. Or fail to understand it again. Goodluck.

[TeddyR]

331. So you agree that your initial premise

Was laughable and demonstrably incorrect and attempt to avoid the issue by asking me to re-read your initial erroneous post? Good job at obfuscation. As I pointed out several times, the Second Amendment was enacted about 20 years before the war of 1812, and you need to really study up on US history, but if you want to stand by your obvious mistake instead of admit it then go ahead.

[whopis01]

258. I think you had better recheck your "recorded history"

The 2nd amendment was in place long before the British came back in 1812.

[AtheistCrusader]

260. Details!

LOL

[Rex]

282. No kidding, I wouldn't expect you to understand history at all.

A few here have clearly shown they have a lack of understanding. NP.

[beevul]

271. So much nonsense.

If the Founders wanted the word 'individual' in the 2A they would have put it in there. They were very good with wording. We have the 2A because the British came back in 1812 with a vengeance. That is recorded history.

Spoken as if the bill of rights grants rights. That is your premise here, and its completely wrong. You argue as if amendment 2 grants rights, with some specificity. It doesn't.

The reality, is that amendment 2 restricts only government. If they meant that this restriction ought to be ignored where individuals were concerned or that it did not apply in the case of individuals, well, then "If the Founders wanted the word 'individual' in the 2A they would have put it in there. They were very good with wording."


Your...depiction (and I use that word very loosely) of what was intended with amendment 2 and with the bill of rights itself, fails, mainly due to not being bolstered by reality. Your arguments ignore basic fundamental constitutional theory, an objective prerequisite to factual accuracy.

[Rex]

281. Wrong, that is not what I said keep your words in your own mouth.

Now the goal post has moved to, "you said this" to fit a pathetic narrative. Have fun not understanding the 2A, not my problem.

[beevul]

285. I never quoted you.

I simply characterized what you were saying, and what was factually incorrect about it, and pointed out the fact that it relies on a factually flawed premise.


All of which are true, people can read it for themselves right there in black and white.

[Nitram]

27. The 2nd Amendment applies to members of a well-regulated militia, no more, no less.

And militias are ultimately under the President's command, according to the Constitution.

[hack89]

32. Not according to the Supreme Court, the Democratic party platform

And President Obama.

I understand you disagree but it is the law of the land and cannot simply ignore it.

[Nitram]

119. Hack, you are 100% correct.

But I suspect it will just take two appointments to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president to overturn that decision, as well as Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, just to name a few.

[Rex]

33. Yet groups like the NRA have fooled everyone into believing it is 'individual rights'.

Without forming a 'well regulated militia'.

[Nitram]

125. It was only relatively recently the NRA started pushing for a re-interpreation of the amendment.

Before that, it was universally understood to limit the "bearing of arms" by citizens. Militias were actually first formed for the purpose of putting down armed popular rebellions against the government. The NRA first started to lobby for a universal right to bear arms after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

[Eleanors38]

226. Sorry, not even close... More or less....

In no other part of the Constitution are rights conditioned by social or "states'" rights, as you seem to believe. All rights are individual and in the case of the Second, not to be infringed. By anyone, but most esp. the state. The so-called "militia clause" is the federal government's statement of interest in and a wider, uninfringed individual right. It does not condition that right.

Study some of the state constitutions and you will see similar references to "necessary for the security of..." language when establishing another right, most esp. the rights of speech and press.

Most scholars who have studied the Second view it as protecting an Individual RKBA, not a states' right or a conditioned right.

[Nitram]

356. In no other part of the Constitution is it as necessary to limit a right...

...as it is to regulate the unfettered use of guns by individuals. The framers saw the danger and tried to limit it by limiting the right to "bear arms".

A little history might help your understanding of why the militia clause was included. A popular armed rebellion known as Shay's Rebellion, against the state had taken place the year before the Constitution was signed. It was put down with the Massachusetts state militia. The need for militias to put down armed rebellion by disgruntled mobs (like the Tea Party) was codified in the Constitution as a result. Militia were subsequently used to put down the Whiskey rebellion in 1786 and Frie's Rebellion in 1791.

The 2nd Amendment does not, as the NRA insists, give people the right to bear arms against the state when they feel the state has over-stepped the bounds of the Constitution. It codifies the right of the people to bear arms in a well-regulated milita for the purpose of putting down popular rebellions by people "bearing arms" against the state..

[Eleanors38]

386. I've read plenty of history, thanks. Your's is a distinctly minority view...

Further, the Second (or any of the amendments) does not "give" a right. It recognizes a right. The government can state a need (the RKBA) for its purposes as outlined in Article 1 without conditioning a right. Militia were used a lot in the revolution, not just in putting down various rebellions. And the various states wanted militias, being suspicious of standing armies. The insertion of the militia clause is reassurance to the states that both the feds and the states could draw on an armed population for arms as necessary; otherwise, the feds would not have posed the whole matter as a "right," and (in contravention to the other rights) a communal one at that.

You may wish to review the constitutions of RI, MA, and N Hampshire to see the same grammar used as a "free press clause," "speech clause," and a even a "venue clause." In none of these states are the clauses modifiers or conditioners, only a statement by the various governments as to what is necessary for them to assure the democratic character of the state. Hugely important matters of "necessity," but nevertheless, independent of individual rights.

[Nitram]

388. I'm not sure being in the minority means I'm wrong. These things are re-evaluated and...

...different conclusions are drawn from decade-to-decade. I believe the interpretation that the amendment "recognizes" a universal right to bear arms, with no conditions on that right, is a relatively recent one that coincided with the NRA's new-found interest in politics when the Gun control Act was passed in 1968.

[Eleanors38]

389. Actually, few cases dealing with the Second ever reached SCOTUS...

save for a clutch of antebellum cases in the South (Dred Scott had some 2A involvement). Even the celebrated Miller decision was handed down after the attorney was a no-show, and plaintiff Miller was dead; hence, no argument from the grave side was made.



The NRA was Not keen on pushing the Heller decision. The movers there were attorneys Gura and Heller of the Cato Institute. The NRA tagged along with a me-too friend of the court briefs. The NRA's forte, then and now, is legislative pressure.

[Nitram]

390. The fact that few cases reached SCOTUS suggests there probably...

...was general agreement on the meaning of the amendment until fairly recently.

In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

[Eleanors38]

397. But then you have the 18th Amendment: "No state shall deny..."

Those rulings were assertions of state law primacy, even where individual rights were concerned. The 18th, finally implemented fully in a host of civil rights-era suits, put paid to the notion of over-reaching state nullification laws.

[Nitram]

398. Thanks, Eleanor for the informative and thoughtful discussion.

Gotta go for now.

[Eleanors38]

399. I thank you as well. Take care.

[Orrex]

61. What exactly do you propose?

Tell us exactly tangible, verifiable measures you would impose to end the daily bloodbath that occurs in no other gun-legal nation on Earth.

Gun Apologists are very big on insisting that the right to possess machines for deliberate murder is more important than anyone's right not to be killed by a machine of deliberate murder, but their gun-loving mouths snap shut when pressed for details.

At most, we'll get some bullshit calling for the persecution of the mentally ill, along with some impotent and meaningless nonsense about universal background checks (invariably abbreviated as "UBC" because gun apologists are so cool). They petulantly dismiss any suggestion that might actually have an impact and demand instead that the quaint second amendment (invariably abbreviated either as "the 2A" as the "RKBA," because gun apologists are so cool) is the holiest of holies and must never be questioned or reviewed or examined too closely, and fuck all that nonsense about "well-regulated militia," because it simply means "any asshole who wants a gun."

And for god's sake, don't suggest that a gun is a phallic symbol, because these brave defenders of centuries-obsolete dogma are more offended by bawdy jokes than by hundreds of thousands of gun murders.


I'm eager to expand my Ignore list, so I welcome all gun apologists to tell me The Good News about their deadly fetish.

[hack89]

83. I support most gun control proposals

The only two I reject are AWBs and registration. UBCs, strengthened background checks, mandatory training, licensing gun owners, magazine size limits, - all good

I would focus the legal system on violent offenders and give the ATF the resources to combat illegal gun trafficking.

[Orrex]

97. I see absolutely nothing wrong with universal gun registration

And I've heard no convincing argument against it.

"Privacy" arguments are meaningless for a number of reasons, not least because the fact of ownership of a legal item is not inherently a private matter. The ownership records of my house are accessible online dating back to the day it was built 80 years ago, and I can do nothing about this. If the history of my house's ownership isn't protected by privacy concerns, I need to a good reason hear why a gun is afforded greater secrecy.

[hack89]

115. It won't save lives.

It is irrelevant to suicides (two thirds of gun deaths )

It is irrelevant to mass shooters - it is no mystery who owns the gun. Adam Lanza's rifle was registered.

It is irrelevant to criminals - with 300 million unregistered guns to pick from they will have all they need.

[Orrex]

142. Why bother with laws at all, if criminals will ignore them?

Your proposals sure as hell won't do anything to stop suicides or criminals either.

[hack89]

178. A national antisuicide campaign is what is called for

The answer to criminals is to put them in jail for a long and cut of the flow of illegal guns.

[Orrex]

245. A universal registration would reduce the flow of illegal guns

Because it would require responsible gun owners to be, you know, responsible for their guns. If a gun is not reported stolen and is thereafter used in a crime, then the owner of the gun furnished the weapon to the criminal. A responsible gun owner can reasonably be required to know where his guns are 24/7, so he should be immediately aware of theft and, as a responsible gun owner, he can be expected to report it immediately.


How exactly do you propose to cut the flow of illegal guns? How would stopping the flow of illegal guns have stopped yesterday's massacre or the massacre at Sandy Hook or most of our fine nation's daily mass shootings?

[hack89]

247. The Sandy Hook weapon was registered

So explain how registration would have stopped what happened yesterday.

[Orrex]

250. I didn't propose it as a complete solution by itself, did I?

But I'll return the questino to you: how would longer jail sentences have prevented yesterday's massacre or the Sandy Hook massacre?

As is often the case with gun advocates, you prioritize illegal gun traffic as a major contributor to the epidemic of gun violence. A universal registration will reduce this because every gun owner will be responsible for all of his guns, so if one of his guns is stolen and turns up in a crime, then he furnished it to the criminal unless he reported it stolen.

And you didn't answer the previous question as to why we should bother with laws at all, since the "gun laws punish legal gun owners because criminals ignore laws" slogan is a standard mantra among gun advocates.

[hack89]

252. There are a lot of laws we can pass

I just oppose registration. I bet we agree on most things.

[Orrex]

294. There is simply no convincing argument against registration

Every argument I've ever seen is a weak appeal to privacy concerns or a vague claim that it won't pass constitutional muster. Neither of these has been well demonstrated, and neither supersedes the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of gun deaths.

[hack89]

296. I stand with the ACLU on this issue. nt

[Orrex]

332. They are mistaken on this issue.

If the entire history of ownership of my home is a readily accessible matter of public record, then the ownership of guns can equally be put on public record with no infringement upon privacy.

[hack89]

333. ok nt

[Nitram]

357. Gun registration probably would save lives.

Particularly in cases of domestic violence and suicide. When someone is given a restraining order or found guilty of domestic violence, the local government would know if they had guns and they could be taken away. Doctors could have the authority to alert authorities that a suicidal person was in a home with guns, and steps could be taken to neutralize the danger. Universal background checks should also be required for every purchase to weed out those who cannot legally own a gun, and those with a history of violence or mental illness. We'll never get to the point of zero gun deaths as long as there are so many guns available, but there are things we can do to reduce the toll.

[hack89]

379. No problem with universal background checks. nt

[Nitram]

380. What's your problem with registration.

Odds are the NRS and the NSA already have a registry.

[hack89]

381. Privacy.

The government doesn't need to know.

[Nitram]

383. So you refuse to get a driver's license? nt

[hack89]

391. Want to compare guns to cars? Ok

I do not need a license and registration to keep and drive a car on private property, only to drive on public roads. Lets do the same for guns - don't need a license or registration to keep a gun in my home. If I want to carry a loaded gun in public I will need a license (we can call it a concealed carry permit) and the government can know what gun I will carry in public. That way we can maintain anonymous gun ownership while directing increased attention on those that carry in public.

Sound like a good compromise to you?

[Nitram]

394. I'd go aong with that.

I take guns to a local shooting range, and I have a ccp, so I'd be willing to register those guns. Sounds like an excellent compromise. But I wouldn't make the distinction of whether the gun was "loaded" or not.

Actually, I've wondered if we shouldn't model gun control exactly on automobile registration and licensing. Require a written and a field test to get a license, require liability insurance, use a point system for infractions (pointing a loaded gun in someone's direction, leaving a loaded gun out in the open for someone to pick up, putting a finger on the trigger before choosing a target, etc.

[hack89]

395. No problem with training and testing.

Last edited Fri Dec 4, 2015, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)

liability insurance you need to rethink. First off, it won't pay criminal or criminally negligent acts so as a consequence it cost a pittance. There are actually few real gun accidents and insurance companies know that - there is a reason why my safe full of guns has no impact on my home owners insurance while a swimming pool or a certain dog breed would have.

The second is that it would be a tremendous gift to the NRA. They would do an AARP and get into the insurance business - insurance companies would be fighting to get the NRA stamp of approval. They would also offer significant discounts to members - which would motive tens of millions to join the NRA to save a lot of money. Think about a larger and richer NRA and what that would do to the gun control dynamics in America.

[Nitram]

396. Not everyone has a gun safe.

Liability insurance would incentivize that if the premium were higher when you didn't. The NRA already has a huge racket certifying gun ranges, safety course, etc. That was actually their original mission, and it was a good one. The NRA could return to that mission if a better system were put in place, and gun owners accepted it.

[hack89]

402. My insurance company didn't even ask about guns.

they did ask about dogs and pools. That's my point. They don't care. They know the actuarial numbers.

The NRA will go back to their original mission as soon as it is absolutely certain that draconian gun control is off the table. Until there is absolutely no mention of gun bans I would not anticipate the NRA changing.

[Marr]

130. Should you be allowed to have a nuclear bomb?

Obviously, there's a line somewhere between 'nuclear bomb' and 'sharp stick' that we need to settle on as a society. Many, myself included, think that line is way closer to 'nuclear bomb' than it should be.

[Orrex]

336. Allowed to have a nuclear bomb? That would be crazy.

You should be required to have a nuclear bomb. Anything else is an assault on the sacred second amendment amen.

[marym625]

6. Bravo!

[Buzz Clik]

7. "FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE REPUBLICANS" Um... about that. It isn't just Republicans.

But I fully embrace the sentiment.

[RoccoR5955]

9. Why do they ALWAYS exclude the first phrase of the 2nd Amendment?

What do they have against well regulated militias?

[Nitram]

29. Because it's an inconvenient truth.

Inconvenient only to NRA zealots.

[hack89]

39. And the Democratic party

Go read the party platform

[Nitram]

133. For 2016? I don't see anything about guns in the party's platform.

I see a lot about gun control in Clinton's platform.

[TeddyR]

143. I haven't seen the 2016 platform

From the 2012 platform:

Firearms. 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.

[Nitram]

146. That was 2013. There isn't a platform yet for 2016 because the nominee has to participate.

Things have changed since 2012, and Clinton has established gun control as an essential part of her platform. Hack, suggesting I check the platform was a total red herring.

[TeddyR]

157. I suspect the party platform will be very similar

To the last one. I certainly expect the party to retain the language stating that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, which doesn't mean that gun control isn't permitted (as Scalia explained in Heller).

[Ikonoklast]

192. hack89 said read the Democratic Party's platform, not Hillary's.

Which doesn't even come close to what actual Democrats want, as she supports issues that are more closely allied with Republicans, war eternal, overthrowing governments, Wall Street, oil, banks, H1B's over American workers...you know, money over people.

From the 2012 Democratic platform:

Firearms. 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.

[Nitram]

358. Icon, the party doesn't have a platform yet.

It will be hammered out with whoever gets the nomination. If that is Clinton, it will include gun control.

[Ikonoklast]

366. As did the last platform.

And if Hillary's platform does not recognize that the 2nd affirms the individual right to self-defense, she will have a tough time in the general, even against a Republican nutcase.

[Rex]

37. Because then they would have to admit they've been wrong all this time.

For such literal people, they sure do like to pretend a lot.

[TeddyR]

126. The Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means

The Heller decision explains it pretty clearly. If you don't agree with Scalia though there are lots of articles on the issue. I recommend "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" as a good starting point. The briefs that were filed in Heller are also all pretty informative. At the end of the day, if you don't like the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms -- according to the Democratic Party's official platform and, more importantly, the United States Supreme Court -- then work to repeal the amendment. Otherwise, work to enact gun laws that comply with the Second Amendment -- there are lots that would comply but Congress won't act.

[Rex]

131. See reply #129

Not going to waste my time retyping that.

[Nitram]

134. All it will take to start interpreting the 2nd Amendment correctly again...

...is two appointments by a Democratic president. Until 1968 no one interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean that there is a universal right to bear arms.

[Ikonoklast]

195. Until 1968 it wasn't thought to be otherwise.

You got it backwards.

[mwrguy]

19. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in.

Feinstein was right.

[SpankMe]

24. Rec. And I don't even give ONE fuck, much less two. n/t

[jonno99]

160. To quote Morpheus: "Then I am grateful that it is not up to you." nt

[Eleanors38]

208. The OP can have his opinion in a vacuum.

[aikoaiko]

30. Where in the 2ndn Amendment is the "the right to kill people" described?

[DLevine]

31. K&R. nt

[Rex]

34. People hold onto the 2A like it is the Holy Grail for all freedumbs.

People and their freedumbs...

[Gothmog]

40. Great Meme on gun violence

[retrowire]

42. i dont own a gun. never want to

but owning a gun is not the same as "the right to kill people".

it is possible to own a gun and be responsible.

[Hoyt]

43. I agree. The "right" to own gunz is about as immoral as the "right" to own slaves was.

Personally, I don't have an issue with people having one or two gunz AT HOME for hunting or self-defense. But I do believe the types of gunz, ammo, etc., should be restricted. Toting, modifying, etc., should be restricted. We should develop systems that monitor using those one or two gunz. I wouldn't oppose requiring video cameras on gunz that are activated when one touches them.

I think modeling any future laws along the lines of Australia's tough restrictions imposed in 1996, makes sense.

[Rex]

46. It is the right to own guns to form a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed upon.

Says nothing about individual rights. This country is in love with firearms...and many just don't want to admit to it everytime there is a massacre in this country.

We LOVE our guns! all 300 million of them.

[Fuddnik]

62. The 2nd Amendment was a concession to the Slave States.

You can read about it in the Federalist Papers. It was worded with the term "states", as in free state. It applied to states being able to keep runaway slave patrols, in which service was mandatory at the time.

The 2nd amendment is obsolete. And in my opinion, so are states. We're one country now. Why have 51 different governments and sets of laws?

[Rex]

68. It was also about the worry of homegrown tyranny or the British coming back to kick our butts.

True it does apply (as you can read about in a history book) to slave patrols. And yes it is totally obsolete. IMO. Some however think the govt is just awaiting for us to give up all our guuuunnsss...so they can pounce!

Sounds like delusional garbage to me, but millions buy that line and go out to waste a few grand on some new death machine so they can feel LESS insecure about themselves.

IOW, gun companies use it as a fear tactic to sell guns (which even the gun nutters know) and it works to a T.

[X_Digger]

340. Oh really? Then why did the non-slave states like Vermont include their own version of the 2nd?

Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Derp.

[Pacifist Patriot]

360. Without a strong central government, such clauses enabled the colonies...

to essentially conscript citizens to fight in defense of the colony without having to pay for the armaments necessary since they were already privately held. Against Native Americans, the British, whatever. Such clauses were never instituted to enable the citizens to revolt against their own governments. I continue to be amazed how many people either forgot what was taught in their history classes or were never taught the proper context in the first place.

Neither colonial constitutions nor the U.S. Constitution included the right to bear arms because they thought people should be armed in case of home grown tyranny. The extra-constitutional writings of those involved in drafting these clauses bear witness to that. The whole "must have a gun in case I need to defend myself against my own government" is revisionist bullshit propaganda that has been repeated so often it's been internalized even in people who should know better. Besides being flat out wrong historically, it makes no bloody sense when thought through logically.

[X_Digger]

412. But if the federal 2nd was only a 'gimme' to slave states, why enact the same in their own states?

The bill of rights grants no rights- it's a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document.

It's right there in the preamble, if you care to look. There's no 'context' that can make the actual text of the preamble go away.

The state governments have the ability to raise a militia independent of their protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Vermont's constitution for example does that in a wholly separate section of the powers granted to the state by the people. Having just shrugged off the yoke of one tyrannical power, the founders were very careful to not replace it with another of their own making.

I'll leave you with a bit from Hamilton in Federalist 28-

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”

[Hoyt]

66. I agree completely. Gunners can't read and use some idiotic grammatical construction

in interpreting that short amendment.

Stevens' Dissent in Heller (along with 3 other justices) lays it out clearly, to anyone who can stop fondling their gunz long enough to comprehend.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

[Rex]

70. I've seen gun nuts start foaming at the mouth over the literal meaning of the 2A.

Too bad the Founders didn't put in periods instead of commas...then they might has a case. Yeah it is funny watching people yell "Heller, Heller!" when they figure out for themselves what the 2A means.

[jonno99]

151. Well, you're saying two directly opposite things. If owning a gun is immoral then it can't be

OK to protect yourself (unless protecting yourself can be considered immoral).

Lost the "immorality" part of your statement and it makes more sense...

[Hoyt]

153. Typical Gungeoneer speak.

[patsimp]

49. i agree with you but i would add

the perverted 2nd amendment 'rights' that the nra has convinced people to believe in so that gun manufacturers can get richer.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

50. Gee, all that gun control sure helped Paris, didn't it?

The cool thing about a constitutional right is that it really doesn't matter what the fuck you, or anyone else, thinks about it. Remember that, next time you're driving by the Sunday pro-life protest next to your local Planned Parenthood.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Rex]

55. Wow, someone has a big sadz!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

106. No, little kitty

No one is sad, but you.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Rex]

109. Did they kick you off of DI?

Nice that you are so mad about someone that wants to end gun violence. Says everything about you.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

205. I wasn't kicked off of DI

I left because I was tired of arguing with nutballs on both ends of the its-amazing-their-brainpower-even-allows-them-to-breathe spectrum.

I don't have a problem with people who want to end violence. I just have a problem who start by attacking the constitution. But hell. I guess you could call me a baby killer as well. Pretty sure a mouth-breather over at the DI did.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[ChisolmTrailDem]

240. What do you mean by "little kitty". Just need that before I decide whether or not to alert. nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

254. The spelling of "sadz"

Please. You do internet, don't you?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ p.s. I've never gone and alerted on all the constant strawmen, misrepresentations (and/or outright lying), and childish insults made against me on this site. I've got thicker skin than that, and besides - it says more about the hard left than it does about me. However, when Hillary is our nominee come April, please don't tempt me. That's all I ask.

[Marr]

138. What an idiotic argument.

The US loses many times the number of people in mass shootings that France does. So clearly, yeah, gun control does help Paris.

'Reality Based Community'... ha.

[Nitram]

359. Even with the terrorist attack killing over 100 people, France has a far, far lower...

...number of gun deaths than the US. Every country has a far lower number of gun deaths. Gun control would never result in zero gun deaths, but it would save a significant number of lives every year. And don't give me the "if everybody in Paris had a gun they would have stopped the terrorist attack." States with more lax guns laws all have more gun deaths per capita. If everybody in that darkened Aurora theater had had a gun there would have been a total bloodbath in there. Remember how many people thought there was more than one shooter? I can just imagine the mayhem.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

378. The majority of gun deaths are suicides

And Japan has an almost non-existent gun suicide rate. But guess what? Their actual suicide rate is much higher than the US.
I won't argue that we have issues with gun violence in the US, but let's start with the violence part, because in other countries there are always substitutes for guns.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Nitram]

382. Even if you take suicides out of the equation, the US is still way ahead on gun deaths...

..for industrial nations.

A gun registry and allowing doctors to ask about guns in the case off suicidal patients would go a long way.

The doctors treating patients after the Paris bombing had never seen gun-shot wounds. Not something doctors in the emergency room of an urban hospital in the US can say.

Statistics bear out that the suicides by gun are exponentially more likely to be successful than with most other ways of trying to end your own life.

[TeamPooka]

56. 2nd Amendment was created by guys who were fine with blacks counting as 3/5ths of a person

and women not being able to vote.
We fixed their dumbest ideas before, we can do it again.

[Rex]

59. It also was created to keep the government is check by forming citizen militias.

And these citizen militias rights to bear firearms will not be infringed upon. Says nothing about individual rights. Drives the gun nuts crazy when you bring this up.

[TeamPooka]

65. that's right. They hate the truth about guns and local militias. nt

[Rex]

73. I've seen spittle fly from the mouth of an enraged gun lover over the literal meaning.

It is as if their brain start frying.

[EX500rider]

266. "Says nothing about individual rights."

Right....that's why it was in "The Bill of Rights"....lol

[Nitram]

361. No, REx, exactly the opposite.

Unfortunately, the NRA has successfully the public into believing that militias are for keeping the government in check. If that were the case, why does the Constitution place the President in command of all militias (Article 2, Section 2)? . Militias were designed specifically for the purpose of putting down popular armed rebellions against the state. Look up Shea's Rebellion, the whiskey Rebellion and Frie's Rebellion.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

[harrose]

213. Actually, the 3/5 of a person was a *progressive* and good thing.

It was the Southern slave-holding states that wanted to count slaves as people for the purposes of allocating Congressional delegations. The Northerners, in order to limit the power of the slave states of the South as much as possible, didn't want to count slaves at all. The 3/5 measure was a compromise.

In other words, the counting of blacks (slaves, actually -- free blacks counted as a full person) as people in this instance was a *bad* thing as it expanded the power of the slave holding states to keep and further the institution of slavery. It would have been far better if they weren't counted at all.

[TeamPooka]

414. Just beacuse it was "progressive" doesn't mean it was right. nt

[harrose]

417. It was borne of a necessary compromise

What would you have rather happened... that the Constitution counted slaves as whole people and given the Southern states far more power to expand slavery?

(And, please don't say something like "I'd rather they not have had slavery at all." Of course, we'd all rather that, but that was not a possibility at the time.)

[Rex]

63. Here we go;

"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 upon."

So you have to form a militia if you want to keep and bear arms...sad that it is twisted around in the meaning by special interest groups like the NRA and the GOP.

[jmg257]

80. Easy - we do NOT want yahoos forming militias! THE Militias were State

entities, organized and trained (and armed) according to federal standards...always with some govt involvement as long as they existed.

Yes, we the people were supposed to be members, but that all changed when we, the people decided the newly created federally backed AND armed National Guard - a new select militia, along with a huge kick-ass military were the best security, not the citizens militias.

The militia purpose of the 2nd is obsolete.

[Rex]

85. Too late, we have RWing crazies running around playing pretend soldier.

IMO the Army Reserve is a well regulated militia. The National Guard is a well regulated militia. Billy Bob and his buddies running around doing combat rolls in the woods are NOT a well regulated militia.

[jmg257]

90. Totally agree! Yahoos who think they are 'the Militia' as identified in the constitution

and deemed "necessary" in the 2nd, but haven't mustered a day in their life, are BS.

[Rex]

94. Thank you!

And they can sign up just for TWO years! That is not much time to ask for imo. They can join the reserve or guard and have all the fun with guns they want to on training exercises!

I won't say they are all cowards, some of it is due to laziness and the fear of bolo'ing basic training and AIT. IMO.

[napkinz]

99. our Founding Fathers didn't have this in mind ...

way to go NRA!

[Rex]

169. Yeah I fail to see where they muster to.

And that right there is the problem. Wording counts. Until it doesn't, which I find ironic since Scalia is the most hypocritical judge to sit on the bench. In modern times.

[Nitram]

149. The constitution actually gives the President ultimate control over state militias.

So much for conservatives' loving the constitution.

[jmg257]

166. Only when called into actual (federal) service.

State governors (I guess) have 'em the rest of the time.

[virginia mountainman]

72. Gun control is too democrats

Is what abortion is too repukes.... pure political poision.

The voters have spoken many times on this subject... ignore them at your peril.. after all since gun control has been a hot topic, how many more seats and legislators can we loose and still be a national party? Keep up this sort of talk and we will find out.

[ileus]

76. I'm sure you'll get over it...

[kpete]

81. NEVER

ever

[Pacifist Patriot]

87. You and me both.

[Gore1FL]

78. The second amendment isn't the problem as much as not follwoing it is.

Gun use needs to be well-regulated.

[Pacifist Patriot]

84. For years I have been saying that travesty of an amendment has made it...

absolutely impossible to have a rational dialogue about responsible gun ownership laws in the U.S.

The vast majority of people don't understand it and have no grasp of why it was included in the Bill of Rights. It needs to be repealed ASAP!

[Nitram]

152. PacPat, the amendment was designed to limit the use of firearms.

The NRA lobbied hard for a re-interpretation and enforced it by campaigning against conservative that didn't tow their line. Their donations to pols have actually been rather small.

[Pacifist Patriot]

190. No, that is not what the amendment was designed for.

...."Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification...."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment

[Nitram]

362. Militas were not used only to put down slave rebellions

And I disagree that that was it's primary intention. The year before the Constitution was signed, a militia was formed to put down the armed popular uprising in Massachusetts known as Shea's Rebellion. The signers had that in mind. The Whiskey Rebellion and Frie's Rbellion were also put down by state militias in 1786 and 1791, respectively.

[Pacifist Patriot]

371. Point is, the clauses concerning the right to bear arms...

were so the colonial governments had able-bodied men with arms they did not have to supply who could be called upon to defend the colony. Whether that be against Native Americans, British, slaves, unruly workers, etc. The second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution very much had to do with appeasing the slave states in particular.

It's the preposterous notions that we have an inherent right to unlimited firepower without obligation or because our founding fathers anticipated the day we'd have to take up arms against our own tyrannical government that are utter BS.

It was, by and large, for a ready made army that paid for their own damn guns so the government didn't have to.

[Initech]

91. [phone]

[Marrah_G]

92. I am not for banning guns

But I am for National laws heavily regulating ownership and use.

[Rex]

101. States have a National Guard to defend against federal tyranny.

The 2A is like the Bible, so many people decide what it means. It literally means what we call the National Guard in modern times.

[Marrah_G]

105. I am still not for banning guns

I am for heavily regulated sales, registration, insurance and ownership on a national level and not state by state.

[Rex]

107. I never once said we should ban all guns.

But we do need a well regulated state militia. Have no problems with that.

[Marrah_G]

108. I agree

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

174. States have a National Guard only until the Feds call them up

Ultimately, the National Guard reports to the President, not the Governor.

[Nitram]

363. Wrong Rex. the President is the Commander in Chief of the National Guard. NT

[Jester Messiah]

102. The interesting thing about rights...

is that they don't depend on the amount of fucks given for their existence.

[jonno99]

123. Interesting. I'm reminded of Franklin's rejoinder to a question posed outside the CC:

A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

I fear we are losing it.

IOW - rights require a level of responsible behavior in their exercise - else the risk of anarchy ensues. If our populace on the whole refuses to act responsibly (e.g. self-governance), then the state MUST act to maintain control.

Not a pretty thought...

[jamzrockz]

150. Amen to that

I think we should investigate why all of a sudden we are having many more mass shootings. Maybe its because of a govt who pays way too much attention to wars in foreign lands and less attention to the economy? maybe its the bad economy? who knows what it is but we have been having the 2nd amendment for centuries and it has served us very well.

Why is it all of a sudden the cause of our violence problem?

[MH1]

300. Actually, they do.

If enough people start giving enough fucks that a certain "right" - such as the second amendment - SHOULDN'T exist, then those enough fucks can certainly make it not exist.

Women have the right to vote in the US, and generally to be treated equally (although that is not practiced 100%). In Saudi Arabia, women don't even have a right to drive a car, much less to be treated equally to men.

The amount of fucks given matters quite a lot, actually.

The only thing you really have a right to do, that isn't really affected by how many fucks other people give, is to breath. Until someone decides to kill you.

[Jester Messiah]

320. You're gonna need a lot more fuckless people.

Until then, I'll just hold on to my CCP. I trust it a lot more than I trust the cops anyway.

[OldRedneck]

113. I own guns

I own guns. A lot of them. Last week, I murdered Bambi's daddy. Going out tomorrow to see if I can find Bambi.

My guns stay clean, trigger locks installed, locked in gun safes with double locks. Ammunition is locked separately in another part of the house.

The next asshole who says "Second Amendment rights" to me just may wind having me arrested for assault and battery -- after he gets out of the hospital. I am as tired of this "Second Amendment rights" bullshit as the OP is. Furthermore, 99% of the people with whom I hunt and shoot feel the same way. Of course, there's the 1% . . . the rest of us steer clear of 'em.

Goddam "Second Amendment rights" have now superseded my right to safety, peace, and even my right to live. All because of NRA $$$ (I'm not a member) and gutless legislators.

[abakan]

114. I believe this will change when...

Crazies with guns start targeting the head of the NRA. Chop off the head and the snake will die.

Just for clarification, I am not advocating harm to anyone.

[jonno99]

145. I'm of the opinion this will change when we are finally able to get rid of "mean people" -

cause they suck...

[GGJohn]

317. The NRA are relatively weak compared to the GOA and the SAF,

who have won more lawsuits against anti gun states, you could disband the NRA and you'll still have 80-100 million firearm owners in this country that will determine the fate of firearm laws.

[SCantiGOP]

116. I agree with Scalia

Let's be constitutional originalists and allow everyone to have a barrel-loading musket. With practice you might be able to get off 2 shots a minute, but they are only accurate to about 20 feet and are usually not lethal.

[jonno99]

128. Sure - as long as those are the only weapons that exist anywhere. Otherwise, no thanks...nt

[SCantiGOP]

140. That was my point

The "original intent" doctrine, while ludicrous on the face of it, in the case of 2nd amendment interpretation doesn't take into account technology advances of the last 240 years.

[jonno99]

141. Sounds like we're in agreement then...

[SCantiGOP]

168. You got it, jonno

I assumed my "I agree with Scalia" statement was oozing with sarcasm.

[friendly_iconoclast]

216. "...doesn't take into account technology advances of the last 240 years." Like the Internet?

There's no 'press' involved- does the 1st Amendment still apply?

[SCantiGOP]

253. 1st amendment still holds up

It allowed "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" for all forms of communication.

The 2nd amendment was obviously written with the personal weaponry that was then in existence as the criteria. I don't think anyone would have contended at that time that a private citizen could have owned a fully outfitted battle frigate and kept it off the coast of New York City. Likewise, there was no anticipation on the part of those who drafted the Bill of Rights that unregulated citizens could own military style weaponry with the killing power of what I can buy today at a gun shop.

[friendly_iconoclast]

256. All that is mentioned are 'speech' and 'press', nothing else

Technology moved on for the First Amendment, but not the Second?

Are there any other parts of the Constitution that you regard as 'stuck in time' (so to speak)?

[Nitram]

364. What is the internet if not speech? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

262. There was a 20 shot semi-automatic musket capable of killing a deer at the time.

Austria used them. The Girandoni Repeating Rifle. It used compressed air, rather than gunpowder as propellant but that's of little difference to the person or things downrange.

It was deemed too expensive, both to make, and to train soldiers on, so Austria gave up on it. Meriwether Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition though.

The technology was there long ago. It just wasn't very refined. The founders knew full well. We've greatly restricted the right, can't have 'destructive devices' crew served weapons over .50cal, no machine guns made after 1986, etc. We'll likely find the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to private ownership of directed energy weapons, like microwave based area denial, or even high power lasers.

[SCantiGOP]

301. I assume the ban also applies (I hope) to nuclear weapons?

[AtheistCrusader]

302. Explosives in general are tightly controlled in the US.

That would be the 'Destructive Devices' category, including grenades on up. A nuclear weapon would fall in that category from a practical standpoint, but it's a moot point because no one will sell you one even if you have the cash, by means of the various nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

If you managed to acquire one, you'd be breaking more laws than anyone could rattle off in five minutes. As citizens, we are bound by those ratified international treaties. And it pretty much takes the resources of A Nation to build one.

So yes, also wildly illegal to even peddle in many of the components that could be used to build one.

[SCantiGOP]

328. Thanks for the info, AthiestCrusader

Don't know how you know all this; you must have an interesting background or job.

[MynameisBlarney]

117. In another forum

A guntard suggested another poster should move to Australia if they don't like it here.

I copied and pasted my reply.

"What a fucking ignorant thing to say.
I am fucking tired of you stupid fucking pea-brained guntards that think your right to own a fucking gun overrules everyone else' right to live in peace and not have to worry about getting shot to death by some shit-kicking, mouth-breathing troglodytes that think there's only one Amendment in the Constitution.

People like you are a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Now, go piss up a rope, you stupid fucking asshole."

He never replied.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

179. Good thing you didn't post those comments here ...

.., a DU jury would never allow such a post.


Good thing there's a First Amendment.

[MynameisBlarney]

188. LOL

I actually cleaned up the language a bit before I posted it here.

[SammyWinstonJack]

352. Love it!

[MynameisBlarney]

354. Thanks!

[slumcamper]

121. Actually you DO know what is wrong with the United States:

REPUBLICANS. You nailed it.

Righteous rant, and I second all you've said!

[jonno99]

127. It would be nice if it were that easy - unfortuantely it's not...nt

[americannightmare]

132. Right on....Jim Jeffries says it best...

"You cannot change the second amendment!"
"Yes, you can - it's called an amendment"

"Your first amendment says I can say your second amendment sucks dicks!"

[jonno99]

144. Both amendments assume responsible "self-governance". With that failing, all bets are off.

As we are less & less able to govern ourselves (less self-constraint, less self-control, etc.) we slide into anarchy - or eventual tyranny. Neither of which is going to be much fun...

[Hoyt]

158. Especially if we have to sleep with one eye open due to gunners trying to grab control.

[americannightmare]

345. Unfortunately, I have to agree...

I think we're effing hopeless...

[santafe52]

180. I'm in….

That's it. I'm ready to REPEAL the 2nd Amendment.

Let's get a Democratic President, House and Senate and let's pack the judicial system with sane judges. Then lets' overturn the damn thing.

Nobody's right to "hunt" trumps someone else's right to live.

It's 2015. American civilians really don't NEED ANY GUNS!

The only Good Guys with guns should be trained officials in uniform.

The idiots, liars and assholes on the Right are Zero Tolerance against any sane gun measures. It's time WE became ZERO TOLERANCE against GUN OWNERSHIP in the UNITED STATES!!!!

[Raster]

181. Preach on! The cult of the American gun is as outdated and irrelevant as Sharia law.

[me b zola]

194. I ran out of fucks to give when the children in Sandy Hook were gunned down. n/t

[KG]

197. 2A makes america suck.

[Eleanors38]

233. Kpete, you and your source can work for repeal of the Second. If you give a "fuck."

Otherwise, I don't give much of a flying F about the angry -- but insubstantial -- bluster that gives succor to reactionary forces. I hope you understand this.

[Rex]

236. 80% of the people gave a fuck and Congress coward in the corner.

That was Sandy Hook.

[Eleanors38]

241. Rex. The country is purchasing firearms in record numbers...

...and those purchasing them are increasingly women, and probably blacks. Check out Pew (no friend of the Second).

If you want to call the Congress cowardly, go ahead. It means nothing, save for sme projection. But in its mellow-yellow mood, it know this much: Those favoring infringement and repeal of the Second don't have the juice, only a shriveling MSM that trots out the usual gun-control mumblings.

Have you the juice?

[Rex]

243. I have nothing against fire arm owners, I am talking about misunderstanding the 2A.

Maybe you didn't read the OP title or post.

[Eleanors38]

263. The misunderstanding is on your part. The Individual RKBA is the Standard Model..

of 2A interpretation.

[Francis Booth]

289. No matter how many times you tell people that your interpretation of the 2A is the correct one,

...you're the one who's wrong.

If you understood how our system of government worked, it might make it easier for you to understand.

You will be right if and when a future court overturns or amends Heller, but until then, you're simply wrong.

See how easy that was?

You're wrong. Sometimes I'm wrong too, but not now.

I don't own any guns, and probably never will, but I do understand that a SCOTUS decision is the law of the land. If the SCOTUS rules that up is down, than by gosh, up is down until their ruling is overturned.

[Rex]

292. Thanks for showing up to express how sadz you are about me being right.

No matter how few of you like to pretend history is the way you want it to be, it is not that way. Facts and recorded history are not your opinion. Sorry.

[Francis Booth]

326. But you're not right, just obstinate and tedious.

The law of the land is completely independent of what you or I think some poorly written clause from 250 years ago means. It is what the SCOTUS says. There's no way around this.

You can act all silly with your sadz, but you're just acting like a stupid person.

[Francis Booth]

329. "How few of us..." wrong again.

An overwhelming majority of Americans believes that the 2A confers an individual right.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/public-believes-americans-right-own-guns.aspx

So not only are you wrong, you're also wrong about how wrong you are. It would literally be impossible to be any more wrong. You're attempts to shout your way out of this is laughable.

Now if you want to discuss how to repeal the 2A, I'm all ears. But given your track record, I expect you'll just be wrong some more, Rex.

[Eleanors38]

269. Those percentages go up & down like tea kettle water...

More important is WHY Congress didn't act:

1). They don't see the controllers as having a solid political base, and they are right.

2). Those who want acceptable change (UCBs) are constantly undercut and discredited by the loud, but well placed voices, behind a keyboard (see above).

Frankly, Rex, most of the control/ban/confiscate "activists" are rather satisfied with their status of moral gate-keepers in an online world requiring little effort, only some sort of purity of belief. They are as dug in as any NRA activist, only with little influence except through MSM. And even they are beginning to look elsewhere for solutions. You can tell: the main dialog now is No one can seem to figure out the motives and characters of these killers. They fled the scene. They planned in advance. They had decent jobs. And in the end, they had pipe bombs and a non-functioning detonator.

Even NPR mentioned gun control as only one of many aspects to be looked at. That is different.

[Rex]

244. I am kicking and rec cing this since you are clearly talking about republicans

Seems so many in this thread are confused about your OP. Meh. Sucks to be them.

[d_legendary1]

270. Fo Sho!

[Rex]

283. I wonder why a few here get so mad when the OP harps on republicans?

They must have some relative that they love or something...yeah...that is the ticket.

[d_legendary1]

334. I think its more about the gun nuts than it is about the Cons

Owning two guns myself I don't find the OP offensive. The cons are calling for less restrictions and more guns on the streets. Doesn't take a fortune teller to see what the future is going to be like.

[Rex]

335. More guns here we come! Can we reach half a billion before 2050?

Swimming in guns.

[d_legendary1]

338. Well we are the world's #1 gun manufacturer

why the hell not?

[Rex]

339. And the worlds largest military weapons supplier.

We are one very militant nation.

[Nitram]

367. True, but I believe foreign manufacturers lead in non-military firearms.

And they are huge donors to the NRA. Gloch, Ruger, Beretta, etc.

[BKH70041]

264. I don't know who this 'Colorado is the Shiznit' is

But I sure hope she's not a member of the Democratic Party.

[cleanhippie]

265. "The right to kill"????

Must have missed that one in civics class.

Maybe for people like this gasbag, I should give zero fucks about his first amendment rights.

[humbled_opinion]

274. It doesn't matter nothing will change...

This is a political mess, if Obama acts on his own he will be accused of siding with ISIS, already hearing it from wingnuts. Obama and Democrats taking away your rights to own guns to protect yourself and won't even recognize that radical Islamic terror is in the USA. Another one... "How does gun control stop pipe bombs"

My point is in an election year this is exactly what the GOP wants... Democratic candidates caught in a wedge issue. Unless we can articulate how a "common sense gun control method" will actually stop bad people from doing bad things with guns and not interfere with Joe Bob Americans right to keep and bear arms then they can never win the argument..

[De Leonist]

288. A literal interpretation is closer to what America had in it's early years...

America's organized professional military was a rather small section of it's military forces with the rest being militia. If we were to follow a literal interpretation all able bodied adults in this country would either be professional full-time military or they would be National Guard, Coast Guard, Reservists, etc. Not a bad idea really since it would certainly lower Americas' obesity rate.

Also the "individual right" argument vs the "militia" argument is kind of a false dichotomy. We have a right to bear arms so we may bear them in defense of our Country and so that we may bear them in defense of our rights against our government. The two ideas aren't necessarily at odds.

But that is simply a historical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Modern interpretation is a different matter.

[flying-skeleton]

290. EXACTLY x 1,000,000,000,000

[JCMach1]

298. Since our Conservo 'friends' always harp on 'original intent'- let them have all the black powder

muzzle loaders they want. And nothing else...

Sounds good to me!

[restorefreedom]

299. big kick nt

[pansypoo53219]

315. maybe if they used the COMPLETE amendment. WELL REGULATED!

[dumbcat]

319. I think that's only fair

since I don't give even a single fuck about your opinion, or for that matter, whether you live or die.

Not trying to be offensive or anything, just stating my opinion, as you did yours.

[passiveporcupine]

324. for clarity, it's extinguish not distinguish.

I had to stop and think what he meant there for a minute.

[HassleCat]

337. Perhaps you could give one fuck, then.

The constitution is a funny thing. You buy all of it or you don't buy any of it. We can have effective gun control laws without violating the 2nd Amendment.

[SwankyXomb]

372. Not according to our local gun murder apologists

We can't even have a discussion here about what would constitute effective gun control laws because they derail it with minutia.

[CBGLuthier]

341. Same here. Yesterday I suggested someone could put their "right" and their guns where

the sun doesn't shine. I resisted the urge to suggest they then pull the trigger.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

346. So, American's get gunned down by armed terrorists

and the next day you want to prevent Americans from defending themselves?

I believe in self-defense. I believe in the right to defend myself and my family. I was born and raised in a country were it's illegal to have mace/pepper spray. I have a British passport - let's do a swap, you'll be happier there.

[pablo_marmol]

349. Pitch perfect post. Bravo!!

Just as this news was breaking, a large segment of DU members ASSumed that the shooters were white Teabilly types.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

369. I didn't ASSume they were white.

They were fucking killers. Turns out they are ISIS. Why are we writing 'assume' like this anyway?

[pablo_marmol]

400. Reread my post. I didn't accuse you of assuming they were white!

And I think it's fairly obvious to most why I typed ASSume in the manner I did.

(Can't even pay a person a compliment during these nuts times I guess!)

[saturnsring]

370. one of the killed was a police officer, a lot of good his gun did him

[Lizzie Poppet]

373. What? You mean something wasn't 100% effective?

We need to completely give up on the concept then!

[saturnsring]

375. it's a long long way from 100%

[librechik]

374. thank you, Boudicca!

[beevul]

384. Well said.

[world wide wally]

353. Let's all be perfectly honest about this for once...

If the Founding Fathers ever met Wayne LaPierre, one of them would probably shoot him.

[happynewyear]

401. I've been done w/freaks & their gunz years ago

n/t

[CTyankee]

415. me, too. It's the same thing over and over and over.

My new idea is to get rid of the Gungeon and any other Gun groups here on DU permanently and forever. We could still cover news of course, but no more pissing around with our theories and such. Just over and done with. Let other websites deal with the finer points.

DONE! NO MORE!

[beevul]

411. Oh, but you respected them before?

Suuure you did.

[Go Vols]

413. Idiot

And to anyone who thinks differently? Fuck off. I don’t care to hear from you, ever.

[romanic]

416. What's that meme called again?

"Your rights end where my feelings begin" or something like that. Yeah that's what this thread reeks of.

Me personally, I think taking everyone's guns away is a pipe dream.