No, I went there because you compared me with a pre-civil war slaveowner. To claim that that has no baggage beyond merely meaning how the constitution should be updated is a sham, and if you contend that that’s all you’re implying then you really have a sad existence.
Whatever you think my intentions were, as I just wrote, my comparison was to your anachronistic clinging to the Second amendment, not to the horrors of slavery.
If you have a suggestion for some other comparable and less inflammatory, baggage-laden law that was changed because it no longer suited the times, I’m all ears.
@Thecorrectline really is right, though. Before the Constitution, there were the Articles of Confederation, which formed a comparatively very loose union between the states. However, because it was such a loose union, there were a number of issues, like collecting the money needed to support the federal framework. The Constitution was only ratified under the promise that the Bill of Rights would go through to protect the rights of the states from a federal government, the one established by the Constitution, which was considered frighteningly powerful.
The second amendment, as I interpret it, was created to protect the states in the case that the federal government overstepped its boundaries.
But if the stated purpose of that right is for a well-regulated militia, then any restriction that didn’t directly impact the ability to form said militia would still be consistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Amendment.
I think it’s telling that the Second Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights to explicitly state its purpose for existing. WHY isn’t the government allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion or submit prisoners to cruel and unusual punishment? These questions are never directly addressed. But the right to bear arms has a very specific stated goal, and one that many gun rights advocates find only tangentially relevant to the discussion.
4 Likes
I was refuting the specific point that militias were called up on demand only in response to threats. That there were standing militias “in order, functioning properly, drilled, up to specification, has their shit together” is exactly and all I was saying.
That’s a “letter of the law” argument and not particularly convincing to people who think the law as written and interpreted is not particular appropriate to current circumstances and should be revised.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:244, topic:13824”]
Licensing and registration seem pretty reasonable burdens on gun owners to me. [/quote]
They do have license and registration for some guns in some states/cities. They haven’t become a crime free utopia. I don’t see this scheme stopping crime. If you aren’t supposed to have a gun and you get caught with one, registered or not, you are arrested. If you legally have the gun and registered, but not accused of a crime, they will let you go, innocent or not. If Mary buys a gun and registers it, then she sells/gives it to Tim the felon, Mary can just claim the gun was stolen. Tim gets in trouble whether the gun was registered and/or stolen as he’s a felon.
I will tell you why gun owners are so against registration. Because time after time this has lead to confiscation. It may not be a conspiracy - the current law makers may just want to try to curb crime with registration. But who is to say 10-20 years later a new group won’t push for confiscation?
Neither have 100% of ICBMs. Does that entitle us all to ICBMs?
1 Like
Sure, but comparing me to a pre-civil war slaveowner is fair shakes?
I’m not by any means an anti. Though I guess you’d call me one for believing that:
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.
I frankly don’t give two hoo-hahs about guns for self-defense. The Founding Fathers weren’t worried about Crips and Bloods.
1 Like
Arguably, those ICBMs and MAD prevented a large conventional war or two.
1 Like
Interpretations differ. As someone pointed out above, Penn and Teller have a very good 58 second analysis of the interpretation in which “militia” means “State Armed Force” as opposed to “The People” who might have to fight them.
1 Like
Very easy: prohibition.
This is an unreasonable condition to put on gun laws. Period. Anyone who makes this argument is being unreasonable. Period.
If you can’t come up with some regulatory scheme that would cut into this dynamic then you’re just not trying (which I suspect you really aren’t). Suppose Mary needs to be licensed to own guns and needs to register those guns that are owned. Mary then needs to account for any registered firearms any time her license is up for renewal. If she cannot (because it was “stolen”) then she is penalized – with revocation of her license if nothing else. Now Mary cannot buy any more guns. Mary has made her first and only straw purchase.
If a gun owner is not responsible enough to prevent a gun from being stolen then I think such a penalty is actually reasonable, though I’m sure you’ll disagree.
1 Like
Is this a sincere argument for legalizing ICBM ownership by citizens of the USA or a stupid “gotcha” one-liner?
4 Likes
In my view, everyone is a potential member of a militia, so the right to bear arms does extend to the individuals. If that’s the case, then any restriction could potentially impact the formation of that militia, were the need for one to arise. Unfortunately, the one-sentence Second Amendment can be interpreted hundreds of different ways.
To address your second point, I think that the Second Amendment is so specific in its wording because militias being allowed was the exact issue that the states at the time were worried about, so the wording in the amendment is extra clear about them not being prevented.
Then Mary can easily be tracked down by the government and her weapons seized, which is exactly what the US founding fathers were trying to prevent.
1 Like
For what it’s worth, China under the ROC had no gun control. Didn’t seem to really help. While slightly off topic, the first thing the Nazis did when they got some power was get rid of the Weimar gun control laws to arm the brown shirts.
Also, it’s definitely not a safe assumption that the Cambodian, Chinese, Russian (or whatever) peasants would have had any access to a modern firearm.
1 Like
But then shouldn’t all guns be well-regulated, seeing as how they’re all potentially part of a well-regulated militia? When the need arises you don’t want a bunch of noobs with guns shooting willy-nilly.
1 Like
This is what I hear when arguments about defending against the govt are made:
Bbbut, I’m a WWI flying ace – my trusty Sopwith Camel will assuredly bring the the revenuers to their knees.
As a childhood devotee of the works of Capt. WE Johns, I would like to point out that this is only true so long as the Fokkers don’t com at you from the left…
1 Like
