That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change.
I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment.
The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is really concerning. And it's self-defeating. It'll only make americans more wary of losing our 2nd amendment rights and increase gun sales.
The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive.
Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, like gun rights, leads to the opposite: at times it feels like we are heading towards outright civil war.
In the face of an obvious societal problem like gun violence, real conservatism would say sure, lets make some small changes to gun regulation, see how that goes for a few years or decades, then re-evaluate our position to see if society is better or worse off. Instead, seemingly obvious minor tweaks to gun regulation get cast as the first giant step towards impending repeal of the 2nd amendment. Maybe we are past the point of no return, I don't know.
The "sensible gun regulation" isn't, that's the thing. Indeed, the people calling for it are so proud of being so ignorant about guns and gun laws that they often can't even accurately say what class of guns they want banned, they've coined a term - "gunsplaining" - to mock those who point out when they don't know what they're talking about.
Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that it's somehow absurd handguns, which are used in the vast majority of US gun homicides, are more tightly restricted than rifles. The idea that the gun used in your deadliest school shooting, the VA Tech massacre, is basically useless and ineffective. The belief that the AR-15 is some kind of super-powerful danger rifle too powerful for anything but murder (it's actually a tad underpowered as hunting rifles go). Also unyielding, full-throated defence of the elected official in charge of the police department which ignored all the warning signs about the Parkland shooter. Pretty much only pro-gun folks seem to be questioning any of this.
To give some idea about the quality of this debate, the founder of gun control group Moms Demand Action literally pointed her followers at a photo of a scary-looking black gun, trying to make it look like some incredibly dangerous killing machine, and demanded they pressure the retailer into not selling it to under-21s https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/969572513154936833 It was actually a .22 LR bolt-action rifle, probably the least effective long rifle in widespread use it you want to kill anyone or anything, that was optimised entirely for competitive target shooting. I can't think of any other country off-hand that considers 18 year olds incapable of buying and owning those. Her follow-up was to accuse the NRA of misogyny for pointing out how stupid and clueless this was, with the help of Media Matters for America.
The campaigns for "sensible gun control" basically just use the term as a talking point that avoids having to actually explain and justify what they're calling for; after all who could be against sensible, common-sense restrictions other than some gun nut whackjob?
I don't think this is a terribly good counterargument, personally. To me, the gun control movement is basically reacting to several high profile mass shooting cases. Your argument to me seems to be the equivalent of countering, say, a mother who lost a child to a drunk driver, with an argument that they shouldn't be concerned, because they don't know about the technical details of engine displacement or the neuropharmacology behind ethanol. That would be nonsense.
Obviously, with drunk driving, no one tends to blame the tool, either, as gun control movements often are doing. It is worth pointing out that automobiles are fairly regulated, though. There is a "street legal" definition for a car, you have to have an operator's license, and there are things you cannot do in a car -- elsewise, your license gets taken away. For better or for worse, America's one of the few places out there with a relatively high minimum age to purchase alcohol -- 21 -- and drunk driving was one of the reasons it ended up this way (https://www.boston.com/culture/health/2014/07/17/why-21-a-lo...).
I personally think it's fine to counter over-emotional focus on the tool (after all, 99% of AR-15 owners are just normal, average folks who don't commit mass shootings or indeed violence of any kind). Ultimately, though, "what they're calling for" is a reduction of gun violence. If "they" don't get a reasonable counter-answer to their concerns (and in my opinion, the NRA is doing a poor job here, themselves often being overly-emotional in response), it's entirely possible the regulations "they" want will result in the end.
Well, people who get caught driving drunk a few times can have their license taken away or a blood alcohol interlock put on their car.
What if gun owners who didn't keep their guns locked in gun safes had their bullets replaced with rubber ones, or had mandatory trigger locks installed on their guns?
I dunno, I'm just spitballing here, but cars are heavily regulated, licensed, the whole nine yards, and if we had a tenth of that applied to guns, we could probably do a lot to reduce gun deaths and gun violence across the country.
One of the ideas floating around after Parkland that seems to have gotten bipartisan support (even the National Review warmed up to it! -- https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republica...) is a "gun violence restraining order". This provides a framework for those close to someone, and law enforcement, to temporarily restrict their ability to purchase weapons. I think (as the National Review columnist says) there is broad conceptual agreement that someone can demonstrate through their conduct that they should not possess a weapon. Parkland was a clear failure in this regard -- the perpetrator was this close to being "Baker Acted" (Florida's involuntary institutionalization law).
From my perspective, I welcome ideas like these. Limited access control ideas along the line of this framework is where I think the focus needs to be.
Some discussion also could be reserved for equipment like "bump stocks", that at first glance seems to solely be designed to circumvent existing law (it is highly illegal to modify a semi-automatic into a fully-automatic gun). Again, treating these type of equipment like the extremely highly regulated machine gun class is something even the National Review agrees with. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/bump-stocks-machine-g...)
This is an old misconception, and incorrect. All Spitzer-tip (pointed) boat tail bullets are prone to destabilization upon impact with anything hard in their path, deflecting easily off of surfaces (eg. wood, metal, bone). They were not designed to tumble on impact, but to fly straight, fast (high ballistic coefficient).
The same shape (Spitzer-tip boat tail) is used for virtually all modern target and hunting rounds. 5.56 (and .223) is basically a glorified varmint round. Certain 5.56 rounds, however, are designed to be frangible, which causes the bullet to break up on impact and causes more wound channels. Hunting ammo in 5.56/.223 does not do this, as it is designed to stay in one piece.
You're mocking the intelligence of gun control supporters and doubting their sincerity and credibility. As you seem to be knowledgeable about the subject, and seem to believe that only persons such as yourself are qualified to have an opinion on the matter, what would you consider to be actually sensible gun regulation?
I don’t know if OP is stating that only s/he is qualified. But that if someone wants to explain knowledge of guns enough to control them, they should spend some time understanding their subject.
And saying someone is stupid isn’t mocking. (Although it can be)
It’s like old men legislating abortion laws who know nothing about female specific health topics.
The tone of the comment seems intended to dismiss through ridicule, but that's beside the point. Its thesis that that one should have knowledge of guns and gun culture to have a credible opinion on gun legislation, so I'm merely asking that be followed up on, with an opinion on gun legislation from those with credible opinions.
I see a lot of dismissal of gun control advocates in threads like these, but arguments regarding gun control from those who claim authority on the matter tend to devolve towards strident defiance - "if you try to take my gun I will shoot you with it." That doesn't make for constructive discussion.
Most firearm violence is committed using handguns and most illegal guns are obtained through straw purchases. The best thing we could do would be to implement universal background checks (i.e. require background checks for private sales) but in a privacy-conscious and convenient way that will maintain support from the pro-gun side. Some kind of app or mobile website that allows the background check to be conducted for free on a smartphone, perhaps using token-based authentication to avoid the need to share personal information.
People who sell guns want a way to perform background checks on the people they sell to, but there's no way to do it because only licensed dealers can access NICS. As long as the private background check system has the same privacy invariants as the existing paper system for dealers (primarily that it is not possible to look up which guns someone owns, only to take a serial number and see who owns it) there won't be significant opposition.
The registry is a non-starter. A significant fraction of gun owners will see registration as a precursor to confiscation. A smaller fraction fear that the registry will either be public from the start or significantly breached within a short time frame, such that gun owners will be selectively targeted for harassment or burglaries.
Given what New York has done recently, I presume that a lot of gun owners will also simply refuse to comply with any registration orders. And, as usual, the black market guns will remain nigh-untraceable, especially among those who are barred by law from owning them.
The best you could do is a database of last-known locations, maintained entirely without cooperation by owners, that will probably consist mainly of business locations of licensed firearm dealers and crime scenes.
> A smaller fraction fear that the registry will either be public from the start or significantly breached within a short time frame, such that gun owners will be selectively targeted for harassment or burglaries.
It's not clear whether there is, in fact, any obvious or easy improvement on what the US has already. If there was it'd likely have happened already. I mean, I live in the UK which has outright banned handguns and doesn't consider self-defense justification for gun ownership, but that won't fly in the US - it's unconstitutional and goes against the principles the country was founded on, and it'd require an lot more trust in your police force and a much less rural population - and probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy gun control supporters anyway.
Surely the burden for coming up with a reasonable, sensible gun control proposal should be on the people who're insisting we could have one if it wasn't for the pesky NRA and their gun nut supporters?
I already put it out there. Gun licenses and gun registry.
Without that there is no room to enforce regulation. The NRA and the gun culture will never budge on these two items, so they make an outright ban inevitable.
People can call things reasonable or unreasonable, that's fine but try to argue that registering a gun or obtaining a license is such an undue burden for the individual gun owner vs the harm of vast unchecked gun profileration for the rest of society.
> The NRA and the gun culture will never budge on these two items, so they make an outright ban inevitable.
> ...
> NRA supporters are gun nuts. I am a gun owner.
Well I don't want to give an inch more to gun control proponents because they have already made their intent clear, they believe that a completely gunless society is much more admirable than what we have today.
It's like this, imagine if a British politician Nigel Windsor calls for the 'assassination of the Queen' and overthrowing of Monarchy. Upon failing to achieve support on that, he proposes bill such as "Full budgetary accountability of Queen's security" or "Transparency of Queen's Expenditures" where Queen's security details be made published or "How about we reduce the number of Queen's guards by just one".
Who in their right mind would believe that Nigel Farage wants "sensible expenditure on Queen's security" since we know that at the end he wants to overthrow the British Monarchy?
This is the same case with gun control. We know that most gun grabbers don't own guns, have never owned guns and will never own guns, it's not in their culture. They also fantasize European countries regarding Healthcare, gun control, hate speech, discrimination laws and Australian style complete gun confiscation. Now they say "Come to a reasonable gun reform or a complete ban is inevitable", which to gun right proponents sounds like "Publish Queen's security detail or else an assassination of the Queen is imminent", I'd say if they could ban guns, then they would have.
> Well I don't want to give an inch more to gun control proponents because they have already made their intent clear, they believe that a completely gunless society is much more admirable than what we have today.
This is exactly my point. You point to extremism as justification for yet more extremism in the opposite way. This won't end well for anyone. I'm not sure how, but as a society we need to find a way just sit down and walk things back. I'm willing to work towards a compromise. It seems you would rather not budge, and so the extremism continues.
There are plenty of people like me who don't care about 100yr old rifle historians, or hunters, or sport shooting, or the rest. We just want our kids to not get shot, and think that the current level of gun violence is far too high. Where can we turn to? Gun lovers and the NRA specifically don't seem to be able to offer any response at all beyond "my cold dead hand" and "don't give an inch".
At a federal level, it's not that easy. If there was an easy way to ban them, the ATF would have already. It's really hard to define a bump stock in a way that wouldn't either ban a lot of other things, short of classifying them as machine guns. If you classify them as machine guns, at this point, you pretty much have to let people who already have them enroll them on the NFA registry (federally, there is no legal basis to confiscate property that was legally acquired and legal to acquire when acquired), which is not necessarily what you want either.
I would view it as a fundamental parts of the system not to be flexed with. You're also never going to get back anything you give up.
You could easily live through 50+ years of incrementally handing over bits and pieces of your right to bear arms to the government before things turn ugly. It's San Francisco relaxing its building codes since it hasn't had a big earthquake in 100 years.
>NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive.
You realize that "sensible" is both subjective, and cuts both ways, right? Have you ever noticed that the "compromise" touted by gun control advocates is always, 100% of the time, entirely one-sided?
That isn't compromise, that's capitulation. Compromise would be "Okay, universal NICS checks for all gun sales, but private citizens can access it for free". Compromise would be "per the full faith and credit clause, CCW permits are now legally recognized in all 50 states and become shall-issue, but there will be a standardized framework to get them".
Compromise is unambiguously not "ban bump stocks" and everyone who disagrees going "okay!".
So long as gun control compromise is a one-way street, I remain a dues-paying NRA member.
Requiring citizens to ask permission for a sale means they don't really own their firearms. It also breaks plausible deniability in a confiscation scenario.
NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.
As mentioned, the NRA did not support those initiatives, secondly the NRA today, right now, is not willing to compromise. As a gun owner, this hurts us all.
Common sense gun regulation is a benefit to safe gun owners and less people will die from misuse, less criminals will have access to guns, less mentally unstable people will be able to go on killing sprees.
This is all in benefit to gun owners. How does sensible gun control (not bans) hurt a legal and safe gun owner?
This is false, the NRA has compromised as recently as last year. Here's an article from their website congratulating the concealed carry reciprocity act being coupled with the background check fixing bill - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea....
That's what a compromise looks like, gun owners get easier concealed carry rules and everybody gets safer gun purchases via enhancements to the NICS system.
> NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.
Not sure of the first two off the top of my head, but the other two of the named examples are things that the NRA vociferously opposed, and (especially Brady) fought to repeal after they were adopted, so not exactly examples of the NRA budging. Ditto with many of them state laws you wave your hand at.
The NRA may lose sometimes, but thats different than budging.
Last year they allowed Fix NICS to be coupled with the concealed carry reciprocity act, so one side gets enhanced background checks and the other side gets an easier time concealed carrying - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea....
> The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch.
Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch either.
All the evidence points towards gun-free zones failing to reduce violence. Will the anti-gun crowd work with gun owners to expand where law abiding citizens can carry?
> If people can't get sensible gun regulation
Without making this partisan - you can't have strict gun control without strict border control.
Should we try and meet the conservatives in the middle and help them secure our southern border?
This isn't a game or a horse trade, I win one, you win one.
"I'll agree not to shoot your kids today, but only if you let me beat up your cousin instead." That's more or less what your argument sounds like to me. Can we agree that gun violence is a problem in the US, on a level vastly higher than many other parts of the world? Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Let's work together to find things that will help reduce gun violence. I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way. You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return. And it's especially jarring when the thing you want in return seems a to always move things back in the exact opposite direction, expanding access to and availability of guns.
You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence? You seem to be saying you'd rather have more gun violence than work together with "anti-gun people". I don't understand that, on a fundamental level.
I never said anything about "gun free zones". I'm not sure what they are, I don't know how effective they are, but I don't see how they hurt either. To me, it seems like more guns, easier and cheaper availability of guns, more destructive guns, less strict and less comprehensive / universal background checks are all things that lead pretty clearly to more gun violence. That's why I'm against those things. I'm willing to change my mind. But the NRA is too busy disparaging victims of gun violence.
I really don't see how arming teachers helps. I've heard arguments for it, but those arguments really just don't ring true to me, and it seems that more guns will lead to more violence. I haven't read studies that seem credible and support what you are saying. Do you have any? I've looked, and there is a lot of really contradictory stuff out there. I'm willing to support anything that will reduce gun violence, in general.
I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I think what bothers me is this. If you think expanded background checks (for example) will help reduce gun violence, why will you only support it if you get something else in return? Why can't we find things both sides thinks will help, and enact those things? Why must you hold those things hostage until you get some other thing that the other side fears will make the situation worse?
> You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence?
You have it all wrong. I don't believe they will reduce gun violence.
I'm saying if anti-gun people were trustworthy I'd be willing to try some of these policies - then if they didn't work we could just stop them - no harm done.
> but I don't see how they hurt either.
And that's the problem: You are happy to infringe upon a fundamental right without clear evidence that it's a big win for society.
That mentality needs to be opposed at every step.
> To me, it seems like more guns, easier and cheaper availability of guns, more destructive guns, less strict and less comprehensive / universal background checks are all things that lead pretty clearly to more gun violence.
But the actual evidence for these is not at all conclusive.
Because the US doesn't have a cartel problem so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does. I really do not know where you are trying to go with this.
Mexico has a demand for guns. US has a supply. The guns go south. US cutting its supply will not increase the demand internally to the level of Mexican cartels, and even if it did it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.
We have much more enforcement and LEO structure all around than Mexico.
If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.
> so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does
The US has a higher demand for firearms than Mexico does - it's just local manufacturing more than meets the local demand.
> it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.
They do just fine running drugs and people. I don't see why guns would be any harder.
> If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.
Gun bans at the city and state level have been found utterly ineffective at reducing violence - in large part because people run guns over the state/city border.
Why would you expect a nationwide ban to be any more effective?
It would still be easy to run guns over the border - just the border now is a national border instead of a state/city border.
The 2nd Amendment does speak of a well regulated militia and it being necessary for the defense of the United States. I'm in favor a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer and have no expertise on the legalities but I do know that amendments can be repealed. There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.
> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.
I didn't say it was unconstitutional. The constitution makes it very difficult to repeal for a reason.
It's why only 1 amendment has ever been repealed and that amendment was written nearly 150 years after the founding of the country.
I'm fairly certain that the 1st and 2nd amendment are pretty much untouchable.
But I wish you the best in trying to get it repealed. The more you try to get it repealed, the more people will support the 2nd amendment and remind people that we actually have rights that we need to protect lest it be taken from us.
I grew up a Reagan Republican in the Canal Zone. At that time I never thought I would see the U.S. (much less conservatives) embrace torture, mass surveillance, things like the Patriot Act, renditions, and other such things that have become commonplace. People haven't been particularly assertive of their right to free speech. Few complained when Clinton instituted "free speech" zones at major political events. Now such is commonplace.
It does not stretch my imagination to see people being fed up with it being legal to own firearms with the lethality that is currently allowable. I may be wrong. Fight for your rights. Be vigilant. I will continue to advocate for repealing the right to own guns. I may never see my vision come to fruition.
"well regulated" meant "well functioning". Like "a well regulated clock".
> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.
You really think you can get 34 states to vote to repeal something from our bill of rights?
If you are a democrat mastermind and want to do that then your best bet is to get more and more states created out of the blue states to get more than 2/3rd of the states to vote to repeal 2nd Amendment.
So people can have guns as long as they're in a "well-regulated militia"? Do we want all gun owners to be in self-governed militias? I don't follow this line of thought.
The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Of course a repeal of the amendment would be fine with me too.
The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep "the military" (British troops) from taking weapons away from arguably "self-regulated" militias. I think it's a tough case to make if you're arguing that the Constitution was referring solely to current members of armed services commissioned by the government.
Those militias were under the control of the colonial government. Indeed one of the colonials killed at Lexington was an ensign. That militia was the army at the time.
To complete the thought experiment, what would we have to do to form our own militia? Have a charter and elections? The colonial army at the time was not sanctioned by the king to bear the arms it did.
My interpretation of the second amendment is that the government has broad regulatory powers when it comes to gun ownership. Furthermore that the right applies only to militias and that in the present day militia would be an organization under government control.
Times change and interpretations change. I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. But for people who are originalists the well regulated meaning in the wording of the second amendment should imply broad government powers of regulation. It’s the only part of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to both the government and the people. It’s an oddly worded amendment. I imagine that the founders understood that a broad, unregulated right to own guns might not be the best public policy and hence threw in the well regulated wording. Also they mention it being necessary to a free state. If it is no longer necessary to a free state what then? Can a ban be placed on ownership? I don’t know how they would answer the question. I do know how I answer it.
> I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant.
That's probably the place to end this back-and-forth. We aren't going to hash out "rule by men" versus "rule of law" a thread about banned subreddits. But I think the right way to be unbound from what the Constitution means is to actually convince people to amend it. There are significant justice implications to ignoring the laws of a country in service of realpolitik.
I go by what the Constitution means. It’s meaning changes from person to person. And from era to era. I don’t feel bound to interpret it according to how the founders would interpret it.
The second amendment means to me something different from what it means to you. As I’ve said all along In these threads, fight for your rights. Advocate for your position. I will fight to change public perception.
The point of the 13th amendment is to eliminate legal human trafficking once and for all. It's not reasonable to say that the meaning of that rule is allowed to change over time. And that standard has to apply for every part of the Constitution for the 13th amendment to have actual impact, otherwise it's just another holy text and can be ignored has a nice myth for simple people. But instead of people sinning by unclean food, the government is allowed to hold citizens indefinitely without trial because the constitution means something else now.
You can't seriously believe that the words of constitution have the same meaning and interpretation for everyone. Clearly what people think the words mean changes from person to person and even from era to era. Peoples' views change over time. The words don't change but how people view and understand the meaning of those words change. This is not disputable or revelatory.
I don't believe everyone reads the words the same. That's why the only objective way to read the words is to understand what they meant when they were ratified.
If the text becomes too arcane or unclear, the correct remedy is to amend the constitution, not backfill the meanings of the words from outcomes we already have in mind.
I don't think this is a slope you want to go down because the constitution is law. Do we want people to view the law subjectively, especially juries that decide on cases? "When the government is acting in your best interests unwarranted searches and seizures are ok, therefore we can come into your home any time we want as long as we are acting in your best interests." I doubt you would be ok with that. Sadly we have laws in place for exactly that sort of thing, and people are ok with it because are we are really scared of terrorists.
The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
you misquoted it the text reads: 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.
emphasis mine, It is the right of the people that will not be infringed.
> The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns.
Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this:
> The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .
So according to you, if the 'security of freedom in a state' is threatened, then the government can suspend the freedom of the press?
Or take 1784 New Hampshire constitution:
> In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .
So according to you, 'if the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is not essential to the security of the life' (again, in wartime or any exogenous circumstances like 9/11 attacks) then this right of citizens to be tried in the county where the crime was committed can be suspended by the govt whenever they deem fit?
Or maybe, this 'justification clause' which was written in many different ways at many different places by the people of that time is actually 'one and the most important justification' for a right and not 'If and only if trial of the facts in the vicinity ...'.
Let me explain another scenario. The first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law...". Today we clearly understand it to mean 'US Congress', but in the year 2256, People have created a new legislative body called Congress-22 and now they claim that first amendment only restricts Congress's power to restrict speech. On the other hand Congress-22 still has the power to restrict speech and religion.
Same thing goes with 'militia'. It used to mean "pretty much all able-bodied men from age eighteen to forty-five". This does not mean that it ONLY protects the right of 18-45 men to keep and bear arms, but it cover everyone's right to keep and bear arms.
The basic answer is no. I was referring only to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. I have a view of what that amendment means and how it ought to be interpreted in the present era. I don't think I'd answer yes to your questions on interpreting the various texts you quoted.
Are you implying that "right of the people" implies that it is not an individual right?
> First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the __right of the people__ peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Does that mean that first amendment is not an individual right to free speech, press or religion?
> Fourth Amendment: The __right of the people__ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How about now? You don't have the individual right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
> Ninth amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained __by the people__.
Again, the 9th amendment which claims that there are rights outside of constitution and they are retained by the people, just because they are not written in the constitution. Are these all the 'right of the states'??
Or my favorite one, the tenth amendment:
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or __to the people__.
Here, it uses "the states" and "the people" separately. Clearly if second amendment meant it is a right of the states to keep and bear arms, then it would have mentioned it so, and not said "right of the people".
> Are you implying that "right of the people" implies that it is not an individual right?
I think you had me wrong it is an individual right. They neglected to include the of the people part in their quote. The 2A applies to the people not the militia
The reading of ehmu's comments doesn't make it clear that he/she probably agrees with your position on the second amendment? It's seems obvious to me. If it's easy to get confused with the intent of ehmu's two comments then it should be understandable that reasonable people can interpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment in different ways.
> That's why we have principles and constitutional rights.
You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm. This is legal nonsense put together relatively recently, starting as answer to the Black Panthers arming themselves and then later some politics. Please look at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec...
> From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.
And, in light of recent events: everyone not turning in their own guns and campaigning strongly for reversing this nonsense is an accessory to the mass murder of children. Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.
> And, in light of recent events: everyone not turning in their own guns and campaigning strongly for reversing this nonsense is an accessory to the mass murder of children. Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.
Do you support women’s right to terminate their pregnancy? Assuming you do, what would you think of similarly worded pro-life argument?
I think you’ll find such emotionally charged arguments are never effective and will convince no one.
It’s also uninformed, as there’s plenty of objective evidence to suggest that guns save more lives than they take[1–2].
I would recommend reading this article. It was written in 80s, when NRA was just gaining political steam, and long before Heller v. DC (after which, like it or not, there is definitely a constitutional right). And it's written by an unsympathetic liberal law scholar.
...because the text is in the Constitution in very clear wording. Trying to use syntax tricks to explain an alternate meaning for the second amendment results in nonsense, really. People who are against gun rights aren't for "well-organized militias" in general.
Very clear wording that took over 200 yeas for there to be a Supreme Court willing to agree with that interpretayption. Previous courts disagreed. Given this no one can reasonably think it’s very clear wording.
I have not read the Heller decision in its entirety. I do know that there are Supreme Court rulings that Heller contradicts. I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded. I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time. I do know that it's not an obvious amendment. There is no such thing as we have lawyers arguing the meaning of the Constitution all the time. Nothing is very clear cut. Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas.
> I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded... Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas.
Can I ignore or rewrite the 14th amendment because I find it confusing?
> I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time.
Yeah, people started ignoring parts they weren't comfortable with and finding new parts in prenumbras.
Your argument boils down to, "I don't know, everyone. There are a lot of gray areas, so we better just agree to do what I want."
That is not my argument at all. I have an opinion on what the 2nd amendment ought to mean. I advocate that others share my position. I've acknowledged numerous times that others don't share my opinion and I've suggested that they keep vigilant to maintain their rights. That's the whole point of politics. This is a political issue and people advocate for/against positions all the time. Sometimes attitudes that once were accepted become repugnant.
We best not just agree to do what I want. That would be absolute power and that would be horrible. No one deserves that much power. No one should be so arrogant that they think they are always right or that their opinions are beyond reproach.
I welcome discourse and debate. It's necessary for a properly functioning society.
The NRA/Republican Party's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a total fabrication. The amendment was meant to apply to a standing militia organized by a state (potentially in opposition to the federal government).
The Founders weren't stupid. They did not intend for any random nut to have the right to carry a gun. The lethality of weapons available at the time the 2nd amendment was introduced is not even remotely comparable to that of the puniest modern handgun. Simply put, an armed individual didn't pose much of a threat back then. They could hardly envision the nightmares we have to endure today, or else they might have been more precise with the language in order to preclude exactly this sort of Al-Qaeda-esque interpretative perversion of a 'sacred text'.
That you're dispensing the carefully-crafted bile conservatives have vomited into our society is little more than a testament to their capacity to brainwash the masses.
> 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.
IANAL but it seems like it applies to people not militias
Wikipedia gives some historical context which makes it seem more clear that it's about people not state-run militias:
> Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution: "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."
There is an interesting section that goes into the scholarly interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the Wikipedia article on it, and it's only been in the 20th century and after that we have gotten into what militia, well regulated and whether or not the people have the right or militias.
The main point the founding fathers had for the militias was to defend the country from foreign invaders and from a tyrannical government. I know people think we don't need to worry about tyrannical governments these days, but what if what happened in Libya, Syria and Egypt started happening here? How would we fix that kind of a situation?
That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change.
I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment.
The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is really concerning. And it's self-defeating. It'll only make americans more wary of losing our 2nd amendment rights and increase gun sales.