All Things Second Amendment

[Idolater]

I'm pulling an off-topic conversation into a new thread.

Most Americans would agree with me that calling the NRA terrorists, instead of shils, is a silly idea. And while most Americans would agree with me that gun laws should be toughened, I doubt my particular line in the sand would be that popular.

That's because your line in the sand is that we each only have the right to be Davy Crockett.

Vote NRA.

No. They once honored the safe use of weapons.

They still very much do. The NRA remains the standard bearer for gun safety. They also naturally have an interest in gun law.

Now they're little more than a mouthpiece for gun producers.

A cynical view, a distorted perspective. The NRA believes similarly to me, that the Second Amendment prohibits lawmakers from meddling in the gun market.

And they've wrapped congress around their middle finger where American opinion is concerned.

How do you think it's possible for the NRA to unilaterally control what our lawmakers do? These men and women are all elected in free and fair elections.

I know you don't care about that, but congress should in a representative democracy.

The system is not broken. Many Americans vote NRA.

...the NRA largely (not perfectly) supports obeying the supreme law of the land, and the authorized interpretations of that law.

You mean they'll take what they can get until they can get more.

No, I mean that the NRA is not as staunchly opposed to gun control as I am. The NRA has presided over, with their approval, the making of gun control laws, including the NICS background check's implementation. The NRA has no qualms about the federal NFA or the GCA. The NRA has no opposition to President Reagan's kibosh on civilians ever owning a standard issue rifle manufactured after 1986. When you say 'they'll take what they can get,' I marvel at the diametric opposition to how I view them; it's closer to that they'll give what they can, to appease a public and a legislature bent on disobeying the authorized interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The NRA is the best thing going for gun rights people like me, but they are far from ideal.

Either the Supreme Court's authorized interpretation is correct, or it's not.

It isn't, but it will take the continuation of American resolve to undo that error.

Agree to disagree.

On the plus side, for my perspective, it's heading in that direction pretty powerfully.

Within our three branches of government, I see the courts cracking down more and more on laws that contravene the Second Amendment. What we're really heading toward is whether or not the majority of Americans who are OK with gun control, are also OK with amending the Bill of Rights, because the Supreme Court is making it clearer and clearer that the Second Amendment affirms a right that most Americans seemingly don't believe that we possess.

The Second Amendment is a law aimed at lawmakers, and the S. Ct. is saying that gun control is meddling in gun markets, and that the Second Amendment specifically prohibits that. We have to decide whether we're going to amend the Bill of Rights, or if we're going to abide by it. The S. Ct. is going to force the issue.

The right of the black people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't see the parallel. The unconstitutional Mulford Act sounds more like Dred Scott to me, being that this law targeted black people, patently infringing their right to keep and bear arms; who, just btw, are like my favorite people.

Sure you do. You just don't want to consider it.

I have considered it. Dred Scott denied rights. My view is that we must repeal laws already on the books that also deny rights. In the plainest reading of the Second Amendment, and also in its constitutionally authorized interpretation, the right of all people to keep and bear arms should be expansively protected, and not narrowly limited to some arbitrary line in the sand. It's explicit about it in an unusual way, none of our other rights, whether inalienable or created, are so obviously defended like our right to bear arms.

Like public opinion.

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a confusing topic. It's no wonder, given all the gun control laws already on the books, placed there by legislatures long past, and long dead. Gun control has become a tradition in America, and most Americans (according to public opinion polls) just see gun control as a knob that can be turned by lawmakers, anywhere from say 1-10. If we're today at a 5, then a lot people think we need to turn it up to an 8 or 9, and some very few think it should be turned down to a 1 or 2.

As I've said, I think the knob should be pulled off, and the mechanism disabled. That's because the Second Amendment, the supreme law of the land wrt the gun market, denies legislatures the power to make gun laws.

So to reiterate, we are heading toward a decision node wrt the Bill of Rights. We have never amended it since the first ten amendments amended the original Constitution itself, and if Americans really do believe in gun control, then the S. Ct. is going to force us to choose to amend it, instead of illegally making gun control laws.

'Should be fun.

According to Gallop polling (link) most Americans want more gun control (67%), while those supporting the status quo declines (28%) and those wanting looser laws and repeals is the lowest and declining (4%).

I don't, really care.

It wouldn't do for you to care, given how little support you have in that position, but it will, over time, matter.

It will, when otherwise innocent people start to go 'hot,' in revolt against lawmakers who obstinately continue to have no regard for our inalienable gun rights, and the supreme law that very specifically protects them. Give me liberty or give me death, or some such.

If they want to become criminals then let them accept the consequence of that choice.

Spoken like a Brit in 1776.

'The British are coming!' meant, 'The British are coming For the Guns!'

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm pulling an off-topic conversation into a new thread.
That's because your line in the sand is that we each only have the right to be Davy Crockett.

Nah. I'm saying that the Founders were speaking to weapons that were sufficient to meet the right. More, that we have better weapons of the same sort as capable. Further, that going beyond that point promotes a needless danger to the citizens of our country.

The NRA remains the standard bearer for gun safety.

Not true, unless your idea of a standard is fairly non-existent. Try putting a bill through congress that requires gun safety courses. Watch who will oppose it.

A cynical view, a distorted perspective.

How the NRA could do more for the gun industry if they wanted to?

The NRA believes similarly to me, that the Second Amendment prohibits lawmakers from meddling in the gun market.

That's what the gun industry believes too.

How do you think it's possible for the NRA to unilaterally control what our lawmakers do?

That would be a great question for someone who said the NRA unilaterally controls what lawmakers do. But what I know is that the NRA, directly and indirectly, funnels a lot of money and attention to congressional races. It's one reason that when most Americans wanted to limit the sorts of clips that were available and strengthen background checks congress ignored them. The members understood that the passion of the moment would diminish and that the NRA and the gun industry would still be there,.

The system is not broken. Many Americans vote NRA.

Didn't say it was broken. I was responding to your tendency to ignore what most Americans want, how you (and the NRA) don't particularly care. And most Americans don't vote NRA or in accord with their position given, as per my not of the Gallop polling (link) most Americans want more gun control (67%), while those supporting the status quo declines (28%) and those wanting looser laws and repeals is the lowest and declining (4%).

The NRA doesn't represent most Americans. It is an extremist group advancing an extremist agenda, but with a great deal of accomplishment along the PR line, at least until lately.

No, I mean that the NRA is not as staunchly opposed to gun control as I am.

I never said you weren't more radical in your view.

Within our three branches of government, I see the courts cracking down more and more on laws that contravene the Second Amendment. What we're really heading toward is whether or not the majority of Americans who are OK with gun control, are also OK with amending the Bill of Rights, because the Supreme Court is making it clearer and clearer that the Second Amendment affirms a right that most Americans seemingly don't believe that we possess.

If the mass shootings continue I suspect we'll see that sooner than later, though it's sad that it may take a few more schoolyards littered with the corpses of children to turn opinion into action.

'Spoken like a Brit in 1776.

'The British are coming!' meant, 'The British are coming For the Guns!'

Actually, that's a myth. Much like the idea that we need assault weapons to be safe or that public safety is advanced by having the weapons I'd like to see removed from the stream of commerce.

 

[ok doser]

'The British are coming!' meant, 'The British are coming For the Guns!'

remember when Palin got lambasted for getting that right?

 

[Idolater]

remember when Palin got lambasted for getting that right?

idk if this source is good:

https://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/palins-twist-on-paul-revere/

" . . . American rebels had stored arms and gunpowder at Concord, and . . . British Gen. Thomas Gage . . . had decided to seize and destroy those arms...."

 

[Stripe]

Everyone should own guns, but politicians hate them.

People, not guns.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

idk if this source is good:

https://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/palins-twist-on-paul-revere/

" . . . American rebels had stored arms and gunpowder at Concord, and . . . British Gen. Thomas Gage . . . had decided to seize and destroy those arms...."

yep :thumb:


and palin got ridiculed by morons whose knowledge of the event hadn't progressed past what they'd been spoonfed in third grade

 

[JudgeRightly]

Everyone has a God-given right to purchase, own, and carry individual defensive weapons.

If they misuse those weapons, they should be punished for the crimes they committed with those weapons.

A gun is a tool that is used to kill. (Also for target sports, but there's nothing criminal about that.) A gun cannot itself commit a crime. It can be used in the commission of a crime, though.

Since a gun is a tool that the normal use of which kills, and since all attempted crimes (but unsuccessful), and anyone involved in the (attempted) commission of a crime, should be punished as if it were successful, then it stands to reason that if someone uses a gun in the commission of a crime, that such a criminal's intent is to kill, and should, upon being caught and tried (due process), be executed for his crime.

This would deter criminals from not only using guns in committing crimes, but would reduce the crime rate overall, due to the higher risk of being killed in their commission of such a crime.

All of that in addition to the risk of being attacked and wounded or even killed by innocent bystanders defending themselves with their own defensive weapons.

Only the craziest of criminals would even dare to commit a crime in such a society. The rest would be deterred, and the innocent people wouldn't have much fear of leaving their homes and being harmed or killed by violence.

The only gun control needed is how one holds the gun and when to use it. Such is enough to deter the common criminal.

 

[ok doser]

...Only the craziest of criminals would even dare to commit a crime in such a society.

there's two problems with that

first, there's enough crazies out there to feed the news cycle, crazies who shoot up schools, playgrounds, movie theaters

second, there's way too many retards that think the way to stop them is to take away specific weapons, or all weapons - from everybody




in every case of a crazy shooting up a schoolyard (who doesn't commit suicide), they're stopped by somebody else with a gun

The only gun control needed is how one holds the gun and when to use it. Such is enough to deter the common criminal.

...and to stop the occasional crazy

 

[JudgeRightly]

there's two problems with that

first, there's enough crazies out there to feed the news cycle, crazies who shoot up schools, playgrounds, movie theaters

Most of those crazies are just your common criminal who has grown bold enough to graduate to violent crimes, because he has no fear of the government or of God.

Put the fear of God back into the hands of the government (through the deterrent of the death penalty) and most (of course, not all) criminals would think twice about committing that crime.

second, there's way too many retards that think the way to stop them is to take away specific weapons, or all weapons - from everybody

Sad, but true. Which is why it almost certainly won't happen in my lifetime. Still, do right and risk the consequences.

in every case of a crazy shooting up a schoolyard (who doesn't commit suicide), they're stopped by somebody else with a gun

Isn't that funny though? And even in the cases where they do commit suicide, they're still stopped by a gun (their own).

As I said, guns (like swords) are meant for killing.

They do that job very well.

 

[ok doser]

Most of those crazies are just your common criminal who has grown bold enough to graduate to violent crimes, because he has no fear of the government or of God.

Put the fear of God back into the hands of the government (through the deterrent of the death penalty) and most (of course, not all) criminals would think twice about committing that crime.



Sad, but true. Which is why it almost certainly won't happen in my lifetime. Still, do right and risk the consequences.



Isn't that funny though? And even in the cases where they do commit suicide, they're still stopped by a gun (their own).

As I said, guns (like swords) are meant for killing.

They do that job very well.

i live in new york state

got one of these coming via ups today -

da gubmint won't let me buy subsonic 22LR or magazines that hold more than 7 rounds, or I'd get a Ruger 1022 with a fifty round clip of subsonic

but they don't regulate air rifles

yet

 

[Idolater]

I'm tired of Democrats being incensed by laws infringing a woman's right to terminate her own pregnancy.

For 40 years her right to terminate her own pregnancy was not infringed, and wherever it was infringed, that effort was extinguished like a cigarette butt.

This is all to protect a right that isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.

So, a parody.

(CNN)Former Vice President Joe Biden says he now wants to throw out the Hughes Amendment, dropping his long-held support for the measure that blocks civilian women from bearing weapons that are those in most "common use" around the world, namely service rifles and carbines, amid criticism from his 2020 Democratic rivals. "If I believe justified self defense is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's ZIP code," he said. The Hughes Amendment is a three-decade-old ban on civilian women bearing service rifles and carbines, even when the woman's life is in danger. Biden's campaign on Wednesday said he still supported the Hughes Amendment -- a position that put him to the left of all other leading 2020 Democratic contenders, as well as Hillary Clinton and the party's platform in 2016. Biden told the crowd Thursday night he had changed his mind because some state lawmakers have enacted "extreme laws in clear violation of constitutional rights" explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, making access to service rifles and carbines more difficult for many women. He said he makes "no apologies" for his previous support for the Hughes Amendment. "But circumstances have changed. I've been working through the final details of my gun control plan like others in this race and I've been struggling with the problems that Hughes now presents," Biden said. He said he wants to achieve "universal concealed carry" and "provide for the full range of firearms that women need" through the continued recession of gun control and offering a "public option" that would allow women to carry service rifles and carbines openly in public. "I can't justify leaving millions of women without access to the firearms they need and the ability to ... exercise their constitutionally protected right," he said. "Folks, the times have changed. I don't think these guys are going to let up," Biden said, referring to gun control advocates. Biden had faced criticism from women's health and pro-gun rights organizations, including the NRA and Gun Owners of America. His 2020 Democratic foes also sharply criticized him Wednesday, when NBC News first reported that -- despite video of Biden telling an ACLU volunteer in South Carolina last month that the Hughes Amendment "can't stay" -- his campaign said he actually supported the measure. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said while campaigning in Indiana that the Hughes Amendment denies gun rights to "people who don't have a police badge" and that's "just not right." "No woman's access to superlative weaponry for her justified self-defense should be based on whether she is a member of law enforcement. We must repeal the Hughes Amendment," California Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted: "Gun rights are human rights, period. They should be nonnegotiable for all Democrats." Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders pledged on Twitter to repeal the Hughes Amendment. "The vice president is absolutely wrong on this one. This is going to deny necessary weaponry to civilian women and disproportionately to women who live in communities of color," former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke told CNN on Wednesday night.

Source of original article (not a parody):
https://us.cnn.com/2019/06/06/politics/biden-no-longer-supports-hyde-amendment/index.html

If we switch from the right to abortion to the right to bear arms, there are two prominent and salient things to notice. One is that the right to abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, while the right to bear arms is explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And the other is that gun control is parallel to any law that infringes the right to abortion. Right now, there are a handful of laws in different states that infringe the right to abortion in any way, and there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of laws that infringe the right to bear arms, even though the Constitution explicitly forbids us from making laws that infringe the right to bear arms, and the right to abortion does not explicitly appear in the Constitution, including in the 14th or in any other amendment to it.

(In the original, it is the Hyde Amendment, not the Hughes Amendment.)

 

[Idolater]

Very funny, very funny.

But not this:
https://us.cnn.com/2019/06/07/us/samuel-little-serial-killer-60-deaths/index.html

This guy killed 60 women. Murdered, them. But the Hughes Amendment, no joke, forbids any woman who is not a law enforcement officer to bear the arms in most common use around the globe today, for her own defense against such real monsters.

If we treated the right of all women to bear arms, with the seriousness that we treat her right to abortion, this guy would never have murdered 60 women. He would have been filled with holes by a brave woman with a gun.

 

[Bradley D]

People tend to forget the reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first part of it.

"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."

 

[Idolater]

People tend to forget the reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first part of it.

"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."

People also tend to forget the difference in grammar between a 'prefatory clause' and the 'operative clause.' The latter stands, no matter what the former says. And the operative clause is, "the right . . . to . . . bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Idolater]

the arms in most common use around the globe today

I.e., selective fire rifles and carbines. These are the weapons /arms in most common use today, among both professional military, and non-professional military. These are the exact weapons that the Second Amendment has in mind, in recognizing the right to bear arms. It is the right to bear the weapons in most common use, at the absolute minimum.

 

[Bradley D]

People also tend to forget the difference in grammar between a 'prefatory clause' and the 'operative clause.' The latter stands, no matter what the former says. And the operative clause is, "the right . . . to . . . bear arms shall not be infringed."

The prefatory clause is the lead-in that “announces a purpose” for the operative clause.

 

[Idolater]

The prefatory clause is the lead-in that “announces a purpose” for the operative clause.

Yes, and "well regulated militia" denotes civilians who can shoot well, and so the operative clause given is only reasonable, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, in order that we have plenty of civilians who are good with guns. Civilians must have free access to guns, and they must be able to freely carry them (that's what "bear" means---it means "to carry;" so the right to bear arms can be reworded to 'the right to carry guns').

 

[Bradley D]

Yes, and "well regulated militia" denotes civilians who can shoot well, and so the operative clause given is only reasonable, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, in order that we have plenty of civilians who are good with guns. Civilians must have free access to guns, and they must be able to freely carry them (that's what "bear" means---it means "to carry;" so the right to bear arms can be reworded to 'the right to carry guns').

I believe that gun ownership should be well regulated (registered). Not all civilians are responsible people.

 

[Idolater]

I believe that gun ownership should be well regulated (registered).

Then I believe that you want to amend the Constitution and particularly the Second Amendment, that would require the first ever amendment to the Constitution that diminishes the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Because forcing people to register guns infringes the right to bear arms. Any law that in any way empowers police to penalize people regarding their peaceful bearing of arms is Unconstitutional, and there is nothing criminal about bearing an unregistered gun.

Not all civilians are responsible people.

'Just another reason to believe the right to bear arms is inalienable, just as the Second Amendment implies. If there are people we don't trust with guns, they should be imprisoned, we shouldn't degrade the inalienable right of innocent people to peacefully bear arms, because some people are untrustworthy. That there are people who are untrustworthy, is more reason to support and defend the right to bear arms.

 

[Bradley D]

Do not need to amend the 2nd Amendment. It already reads "well regulated."