The second amendment

[Nakosis]

Exactly. Freedom is essential.
Also the right to self-defense is a sacred right.
There should be a compromise between the two stances.

Here's the weird thing to me. I see no problem to increase background checks. Require gun safety training. Keep guns out of the hands of folks who obviously shouldn't have them but we seem unable to get anywhere with such laws. I don't think this would solve the problem necessarily but might stop a few such shooting. Don't really understand the objection to this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think we need to look at what the supreme court has decided. They ruled that the right to own a gun is an individual right and need not be associated with a militia.

Key Second Amendment Supreme Court Cases - U.S. LawShield

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
The Problem
Special Policeman Dick Heller and several other residents of the District of Columbia all wanted a gun for self-defense. At the time, D.C. prohibited the carrying of any unregistered firearms yet barred all handgun registration. D.C. also required all lawfully owned guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, including in a person’s own home, with few exceptions. Heller felt this ban prevented someone from properly defending themselves at home and violated the Second Amendment.

The Ruling
In this Second Amendment Supreme Court case, the Court made several rulings upholding our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It found that:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for the purpose of self-defense, unrelated to militia or military activity. And because handguns are today’s primary defensive weapon of choice, they’re also protected.
2. The phrase “bear arms” meant: “to wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”
3. A “well regulated Militia” is not the state’s military forces.
4. The D.C. regulation effectively banning handgun possession and the law requiring firearms in the home to be kept inoperable at all times, both violated Second Amendment protections.
5. The Second Amendment is not unlimited or absolute. Reasonable restrictions may be upheld (such as limits on firearm possession, carrying in schools and government buildings, and “dangerous and unusual” weapons).

Unfortunately, the District of Columbia is under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and the federal government, not a state. So, while SCOTUS made several key decisions on what the Second Amendment means and protects, the case shed no light on whether states could regulate and/or ban firearms.

Yeah, that is one interpretation. There are others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here's the weird thing to me. I see no problem to increase background checks. Require gun safety training. Keep guns out of the hands of folks who obviously shouldn't have them but we seem unable to get anywhere with such laws. I don't think this would solve the problem necessarily but might stop a few such shooting. Don't really understand the objection to this.

Short - the evil government and FREEDOM!!!

 

[Nakosis]

Short - the evil government and FREEDOM!!!

Sometimes the evil government is necessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. Freedom is essential.
Also the right to self-defense is a sacred right.
There should be a compromise between the two stances.

Freedom?

Have you ever been to the US? Americans give up a lot of their freedoms for their guns.

Many retail cashiers work in bulletproof cages. Going to the theatre or a professional sporting event often involves a security screening not too different from an airport. If you're pulled over by a cop, they're ready to shoot you the whole time, just in case you're armed and dangerous (because a lot of people are).

My father-in-law would like to warn us before going to Florida not to honk at other drivers while driving "because they have guns and you don't."

It's wild to watch ammosexuals tie themselves in knots trying to argue that the prison-like society they're responsible for is "freedom." I don't think many of them have ever seen what an actual free society looks like.

 

[esmith]

Also, to 'bear arms' originally meant to join such a militia.

Pleas tell us why you think you know what they ment.
It also says "Keep".

 

[esmith]

BTW, when the 2nd Amendment was passed, the most dangerous gun was a single-shot muzzle-loader, and the importance of that is that if a person shot a civilian in a store, let's say, there would be roughly 30 seconds for someone to grab him/her. I think the founding fathers today would likely tell us "What the hell are you thinking with all these multi-round guns in civilian hands!!!".

Again we have another person that thinks they know what the founders did or did not mean.
Good try though, but you lose as usual.

 

[Polymath257]

Pleas tell us why you think you know what they ment.
It also says "Keep".

And someone who is in a well-regulated militia can keep their arms even when they aren't actively fighting or training.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yeah, that is one interpretation. There are others.

But this is the interpretation that gives us the individual right to own a gun. No one else's does.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But this is the interpretation that gives us the individual right to own a gun. No one else's does.

Yes and so what. You didn't have it before 2008, so you didn't really exist because you didn't have that right before so there was no USA before 2008.

Well, I can give you one that gives you the fundamental right to own a gun if you are of able mind and still meets all of the 2nd.
So no! There is not only one way to do it.

 

[esmith]

And someone who is in a well-regulated militia can keep their arms even when they aren't actively fighting or training.

But you have no facts to back-up "your" interpretation.

 

[Valjean]

Again we have another person that thinks they know what the founders did or did not mean.
Good try though, but you lose as usual.

But you have no facts to back-up "your" interpretation.

The original debates were all recorded, plus there was much discussion in the papers of the day. If you want to understand the original issues and intents, go back to these discussions, letters and editorials, by the authors of the bill and other interested parties.

 

[Mister Emu]

BTW, when the 2nd Amendment was passed, the most dangerous gun was a single-shot muzzle-loader

That just isn't true. There were repeaters and the beginnings of Gatling-style guns.

Also, the explosives, such as black powder stores for cannons, citizens were allowed to have then were much more dangerous than even a modern sporting rifle.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Again we have another person that thinks they know what the founders did or did not mean.

And the founders did not know the issues us 21st century folk would be facing.

 

[Stevicus]

This is an intelligent, compelling and thorough analysis. I do agree.
I would like to add that maybe (it is just a supposition) law enforcement do not trust the average American citizen because they know that the average American citizen can own a gun.
They see them as an equal, maybe?

Maybe in Europe law enforcement sees random citizens as fragile and defenceless, because they have no weapons.

Law enforcement sometimes aren't sure if someone they're dealing with is armed or not. So, they're careful, although they can sometimes get a bit too trigger happy or overzealous, which is how many of these killings by police officers occur. Of course, it gives them a ready-made excuse for killing people, since they can say they thought the suspect had a gun.

I'm not sure how European law enforcement views its citizenry. They're obviously not fragile or defenseless, at least not historically. My sense is that Europe seems to have a far more orderly and obedient feel about it, whereas a lot of Americans tend to thumb their nose at authority and flout the rules if they think they can get away with it. That doesn't necessarily mean outright rebellion or revolution - although we've had that in our history, too. But then, so has Europe - multiple times.

 

[suncowiam]

The second amendment is antiquated. It was well thought out for a generation that does not exist anymore. Now, it is a bane to the American public.

Guns didn't exist in the time when the constitution was created. Muskets existed. And there is a huge difference between weapons of then and now.

 

[suncowiam]

That just isn't true. There were repeaters and the beginnings of Gatling-style guns.

Also, the explosives, such as black powder stores for cannons, citizens were allowed to have then were much more dangerous than even a modern sporting rifle.

How heavy were these gatlings? Could an 18 year grab one and kill 20+ people with it?

 

[Valjean]

How heavy were these gatlings? Could an 18 year grab one and kill 20+ people with it?

The Gatling gun was invented in 1861. It's not something that can be carried or easily utilized by individuals. It's a heavy, unwieldy device.
Gatling gun - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The Gatling gun was invented in 1861. It's not something that can be carried or easily utilized by individuals. It's a heavy, unwieldy device.
Gatling gun - Wikipedia

Well, a strong person could maybe carry a modern small calibre Gatling gun with limited ammunition. But it is more effective to use other guns.
But for the shooting in Vegas from the hotel a Gatling would have been better.

 

[Valjean]

Well, a strong person could maybe carry a modern small calibre Gatling gun with limited ammunition. But it is more effective to use other guns.
But for the shooting in Vegas from the hotel a Gatling would have been better.

Small calibre Gatlings would be like small buggies pulled by miniature horses. Why bother? We have machine and submachine guns -- small, light and quick to reload.

Standard issue military arms can operate on full auto. Simple "bump" mechanisms can render an ordinary pistol or rifle, effectively, fully automatic:

Then there are "fun switches:
"

They're just little, screw-on auto sears.

Anyone can find devices on the black market to alter sears. You can alter or buy an ordinary semi-auto pistol or rifle's internal, factory sear to fire full-auto pretty easily.