Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I don't care what anyone thinks about their right to own guns [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)295. In order...
You suggest the RKBA includes obvious arms uses at the time on the frontier - hunting, repelling wild animals and other threats. Does the current absence of those wild animal threats in most parts of the country obviate that aspect, and limit the obviousness to hunting - for food not sport?
The problem with the above, is that wild animal threats are not absent in most parts of the country. This for example:
Bear family beats the heat with swim in N.J. family's pool
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/08/21/bear-family-beats-heat-swim-new-jersey-pool/32106623/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/08/21/bear-family-beats-heat-swim-new-jersey-pool/32106623/
I'm not suggesting the homeowner should have shot those bears, however, they are a threat, for a fact. In NJ. In my own circumstance, I have to shoot the occasional coyote, that thinks my pommies would make a good lunch. Coyotes are even found in pretty urban areas. Again, I don't suggest shooting unless one really needs to. FWIW, I carry a snake stick around in my vehicle and get rattlers and the occasional bull snake or hognose snake off the road, rather than killing them or running them over as some would.
If we replace obvious frontier threats with modern non-rural threats that still require a gun according to many, are those needs so obvious? Is Stand Your Ground an appropriate articulation of the evolving 'obvious' the founders intended?
I think that yes, those needs are still obvious. I do not believe that anyone should ever be required by law to retreat. Requiring such, allows one to be manipulated by the hypothetical violence prone individual and takes away from the ability of the person being attacked to control the outcome based on his/her circumstances which no law can ever predict or truly fit. I doubt very much that the framers would have been for requiring individuals to retreat in that sense, after having fought against the crown, the action of which, was completely contrary to a duty to retreat.
So, BECAUSE the militia is necessary suggests the government cannot infringe on the militia because the founders believe a free state needs a militia. Essentially, a free state needs a populace that is proficient with weapons upon which the government can call to form a militia "if/when/where". Yes?
No. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the only stated right in amendment 2, and therefore can be the only right being referred to, that shall not be infringed. The government was granted powers in the constitution relating to the militia. But that's a different document with a different purpose entirely. Also, I'm not certain that 'a free state' refers to 'the state' rather than 'a state of freedom'.
A miliitia formed in order to 'put down inserruections, repel invasions' etc (Article1Sec8)? A populace whom, when called upon, will need a minimum of training. This 'ready force' is what is necessary for a free state? Does the militia have another purpose?
State militias have been called out during numerous disasters IIRC.
"The 'militia clause' is justificatory." Justifying if not the militia, then what - the RKBA? In that case, why the comma? Wouldn't "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" have been clearer that they intended no infringement on that right specifically? Without the comma, the argument can be made that the RIGHT is the subject, the two phrases before it clauses. As written, Militia appears to be the subject of the sentence, the free state and RKBA phrases as the clauses.
Justifying the restriction on government power. Rumor has it that the original bill of rights was only passed with the single comma. Regardless, the documents purpose as stated in the preamble sets the context.
'A well regulated militia ... shall not be infringed' does restrict the government. It is restricting govt from abolishing or infringing upon the militia. This is consistent with the Bill of Rights, no authorizing rights involved. If it restricts govt from abolishing the RKBA, then why mention the militia at all? Then why the comma?
Again, rumor has it that the original was passed with a single comma. And, since government was never granted power to abolish the militia in the constitution, why would it be necessary to forbid it here? Besides that, we know that there is a right of the people to keep and bear arms. The militia is mentioned, because it is justification for the restriction on government, and is the entity which is drawn from 'the people' who have the right to keep and bear arms.
You can not draw an armed militia from a disarmed people.
That non-comma version appears to be the interpretation that is currently applied in practice. If the militia clause is justficatory, is the existence of the militia still justified in today's society that has no need of the militia, and if not, doesn't that obviate the justification for the RKBA?
Its also rumored to be the one that actually was passed into law. "that has no need of the militia" is subjective. One can obviate the justification to ones hearts content, but the restriction on government remains.
It could very well say 'the yellow moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, and the government would be no less restricted.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
337 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think we are fast approaching the day when people start publicly advocating for a repeal of the 2A
LonePirate
Aug 2015
#1
Twenty years ago, a national politician would never have supported marriage equality.
LonePirate
Aug 2015
#26
It wouldn't even do that. The bill of rights confers no rights. Repealing it removes none.
X_Digger
Aug 2015
#190
sure. that's why it's a national problem. I live in CT and could easily get to another
CTyankee
Aug 2015
#265
That's because no prominent figure on the left is willing to start the discussion.
LonePirate
Aug 2015
#106
Well the threadstarter doesn't care what anyone thinks. Is that a discussion,
closeupready
Aug 2015
#119
There are lots of guns but few gun owners. Only 32% of households have guns.
flamin lib
Aug 2015
#10
It's NOT paranoia, it's *precaution*... ANYONE can call and say they are Joe Blow conducting a poll
Ghost in the Machine
Aug 2015
#131
Asking a stranger on the telephone if they have a gun in their house is kind of like
the band leader
Aug 2015
#140
Come on now, you're a kook if you think it's 64%. It's probably more like 40% though.
MillennialDem
Aug 2015
#147
Polls/surveys. There is probably some underreporting of data, but likely not as much as people
MillennialDem
Aug 2015
#170
They could think it's a robber who is trying to target houses without guns. It could be people who
MillennialDem
Aug 2015
#176
Yeah but I generally don't put much stock in speculation (which is why I trust the polls well enough
MillennialDem
Aug 2015
#253
Oh for fuck's sake, I think my in laws would tell me if they own guns, I know my 93 year old
MillennialDem
Aug 2015
#173
Pretty much. I'm pretty boring. Oh also I'm pretty sure my wife/partner doesn't have one
MillennialDem
Aug 2015
#177
I trust polls/surveys with relative accuracy. Another good indicator is younger people are
MillennialDem
Aug 2015
#183
If it weren't for the NRA's control over our Congress we would have achieved gun
CTyankee
Aug 2015
#263
Well it's a free country. You're free to leave. Free to lobby for change, too.
closeupready
Aug 2015
#8
I think authorities there concede less than a third have been "bought back"
Eleanors38
Aug 2015
#285
By the time you guys manage to ban guns, you won't be able to walk down the street
the band leader
Aug 2015
#11
You have no idea what you're talking about and that is why your fail is so epic.
the band leader
Aug 2015
#138
You filled your fourth gun safe with AKs and ammo yet, GG? Did you notice even Walmart is going to
Hoyt
Aug 2015
#194
So you are proving that the definition of "militia" is define in STATUTE
ThoughtCriminal
Aug 2015
#243
One more liberal judge out of the 9 and it would have been decided differently.
maxsolomon
Aug 2015
#187
I have no problem with registering guns either. Just not sure it solves anything.....
Logical
Aug 2015
#53
You and others really don't understand how insurance works or the effects of such a policy.
branford
Aug 2015
#133
And you don't distinguish between people that misuse guns and people that don't.
beevul
Aug 2015
#210
There are people out there that honestly believe ISIS in coming from Mexico.
Spitfire of ATJ
Aug 2015
#52
Yep those Sandy hook victims were selfish and the theatergoers and so on...
Katashi_itto
Aug 2015
#68
Her body, her choice. And your body, ALSO her choice, while she's at it, I guess.
closeupready
Aug 2015
#96
"murdered by guns" - you mean as opposed to murder by knives, bludgeoning, or drunks in cars?
jonno99
Aug 2015
#85
There is no question that these deaths were horrible, but a little perspective is helpful.
jonno99
Aug 2015
#76
Could be wrong, but haven't drunk driving deaths gone down a lot since the 70s?
MillennialDem
Aug 2015
#154
If you reject other people's thoughts, don't you basically reject democracy?
HereSince1628
Aug 2015
#118
I support her frustration, but I think she hasn't thought this thru the implications of her comments
HereSince1628
Aug 2015
#123
I think her irrational/emotional response is common. But it's hyperbolic.
HereSince1628
Aug 2015
#130
No, I think I am not so very wrong. I respect you, but I think you need to breathe.
HereSince1628
Aug 2015
#125
Starting a thread on an internet message board with "I don't care what anyone thinks..."
Snobblevitch
Aug 2015
#132
You have stated that you don't care what anyone thinks about their right to own guns.
Snobblevitch
Aug 2015
#266
Dontcha know a dead unarmed victim is morally superior to a live armed one?
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2015
#312
Yep, and we dont even have to do away with the 2nd, all we have to do is read it,
randys1
Aug 2015
#156
What exactly is the militia and how is it "nessesary to the security of a free state"?
the band leader
Aug 2015
#162
no, it's political organizing for a better presidential candidate who is brave enough to
CTyankee
Aug 2015
#181
Very few citizens own military grade weapons, those were outlawed in 86 except for the ones
GGJohn
Aug 2015
#220
So are you going to burst into republican homes and take their guns from them ?
Township75
Aug 2015
#232
Quill pens are also OK. Otherwise, the First Amendment doesn't apply
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2015
#311
Would you hold the rest of the Constitution to the same standard that you would apply...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2015
#310
So what are you doing to change it, aside from posting on the Internet?
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2015
#321
"I'm positive I'm doing more than you" What has that "doing" achieved,...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2015
#324
You are free to ignore any and all of my questions, as well as any and of all my other posts
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2015
#326
The toy, I mean gun, no longer has a positive outcome when comparing deaths to
randys1
Aug 2015
#301
No. I *will* keep talking about the Second (and First, Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth, etc) Amendment(s)
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2015
#309