Each state regulates guns as “well” as they want, and each state has its own definition of exactly what that means. The issue is that the federal government doesn’t have the right to regulate; only the states do.
Every state regulates arms in one way or another.
I doubt the founders even considered the possibility that individuals could be easily tracked down by the government. This was before the telegraph and social security were invented.
That ship sailed long ago, we fought that battle rather viciously - it was called the US Civil War.
Okay, let’s switch it to prohibition then.
Thanks for tacitly acknowledging that instead of being intentionally inflammatory, my point in referring to pre-Civil War slaveowners was meant to highlight your anachronistic clinging to the invalid notion of militias, and to your falling back on “Well, the law’s the law, dadgummit, so since it’s the law, I’m right to defend it!”
I’m still waiting for you to deal convincingly with the anachronism, but I suspect I’ll be waiting a long, long time for that one. I also don’t expect you to defend the boneheaded claim you’re apparently making that because the law’s the law, and the Supreme Court made it so, then it’s right and just and good, and never to be changed again for any reason anyone could come up with.
And that’s actually a serious problem because:
I’ve talked to a lot of gun owners who liked the idea of standardizing regulations across states.
The need of the people to possess the means by which to combat tyranny has never been, nor will it ever be anachronistic.
I’ll take an SE5a instead, please.
The law was written at a time when “combating tyranny” involved facing down guys with muzzle loaders and most killing was done with the bayonet.
What do you think would constitute “the means by which to combat tyranny”? You think an AR-15 is gonna do it?
Unless you agree the 2nd amendment guarantees your right to jet fighters, tanks, and heavy artillery it is indeed a little bit anachronistic.
Oh come now, it is anachronistic. What good would the peashooters we’re allowed to have do against the tanks, bulldozers, bazookas, helicopters, drones, missiles and on and on that they have? You’re going to shoot it out and “combat tyranny” against all that? To think the balance of force is anything near what it was in the 1700s is indeed entirely anachronistic.
And, as I was typing, I see @wysinwyg has this covered too, but I’ll hit Reply anyway.
That’s not lost on me, but the states still have rights. I know that the Civil War changed a lot of things concerning states’ rights versus federal rights, but it wasn’t the be-all and end-all.
I don’t know why people are arguing over the “militia” clause in the 2nd amendment. It’s been decided already by the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008. You can read all about what the supreme court thought of it here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
They decided that the 2nd amendment does allow regular people to keep guns. I don’t see how arguing that particular point is in any way productive.
Argue that the 2nd amendment should be repealed (good luck).
Or argue in favor of stricter control over how guns are acquired or stored.
Or argue about what sorts of limits there should be on what sorts of guns people can have.
But the one thing that is taking up the most space on this page is the one thing that’s already been decided by the supreme court. Why argue that?
No, but I find it possible tens of thousands of AR-15’s would do it. You’re saying what exactly, the state is so well armed that no resistance can be meaningful, so just lay back and enjoy it? Is that really the enlightened point you’ll put forth against this “anachronism”?
If it comes time to join with my fellow citizens in order to combat tyranny, we may face tanks, jet planes, and rabid badgers for all I know. Fighting for a cause is often hopeless. If my petty little rifle is all I have, at least I’ll have that much.
Because the supreme court sometimes makes bad decisions and sometimes reverses decisions previously made, for one.
Because the supreme court does not dictate the conscience of the individual, for another.
Under either of these reasons one may argue that the supreme court’s ruling is wrong. Again, “letter of the law” arguments won’t convince anyone who think the law should be different from what it is.
A lot of people have already pointed out that the Supreme Court has already made a decision on this and yet clearly a lot of people disagree with it. So why argue that?
I see your point, but the federal gov’t already has the power to decide what crosses state lines, in my interpretation. I think that anything crossing state lines could potentially be considered inter-state commerce, which the federal gov’t has the right to regulate.
Also, it’s a gun owner’s responsibility to make sure that he or she is in compliance with the laws wherever he or she goes. Actually, it’s everybody’s responsibility to do that, but for the discussion at hand, it’s particularly relevant for gun owners.
I’d also like to mention that in every individual sale of guns that I know about, the seller asked for an ID, to confirm that the buyer was from the same state. I’m sure that this isn’t universal, but it’s still the case in the majority of sales in my area.
He was comparing your argument to an historically invalid position. Not you to anyone else.
IMHO, You seem to be taking the valid point personally. Stop gaming the refs. Make your own points.
Not without air support. You see, there have been some changes in military strategy over the course of the last 250 years. You might want to check out some of that out.
No, I’m saying armed resistance is an impractical response to tyranny given the last 250 years of military history. I certainly don’t recall saying anything about “enjoying it”.
Oh god, these tough guy histrionics make me cringe. OK, hero, let me know when you and your fellow citizens think it’s tyranny already and I’ll sound the air raid siren for you.
We’re already well past anything the founders would have recognized as tyranny and as far as I can tell you’re sitting around in your jammies commenting on BoingBoing instead of out in the fields mowing down feds.
No doubt. Just saying gun control would be easier to enforce, more effective, and easier to comply with if it was standardized across the states. I don’t think you’ve demonstrated any benefit to the current arrangement but if you prefer it for sentimental reasons or whatever the more power to you.
In the decision you linked, it’s as easy to disagree with this statement of the SC as it is many others:
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.
If a majority of that court prefers to ignore the basic rules of English grammar and sentence construction (whereby an introductory clause beginning with “While” does indeed “limit the scope” of the second clause), that decision can certainly be reconsidered and overturned (as have other SC decisions).
I work with a couple of people who sometimes talk as if they want that to happen - he’s very keen to talk about all the guns he has and how the people will rise up against oppression (it tends to be interspersed with rants about Obamacare). One of them is a member of the local militia (WA state guard, I guess) and has some nice photos of his days as a WW2 recreater (in which he played a German, complete with swastikas).
I try to avoid conversations with him.
One of the worst things about work can, in my experience, be colleagues.
