The second amendment

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Yes, yet even for mass-shootings there is niche for a gatling.

 

[joe1776]

Okay, make a thread.

It's up. Let me know what you think.

 

[metis]

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

Gatling guns weren't invented until 1861 and repeaters also in the 19th century.

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.

Yep, but that's not the issue with pistols or long guns, which is what I was referring to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's up. Let me know what you think.

I will answer tomorrow. It deserves a long answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

I remember armed Korean immigrant business owners
defending their property against armed & violent rioters
back in 1992 LA.
Why wasn't government protecting them?
That's not their job.

This video covers it.
Some profanity.

 

[Wandering Monk]

In regard to 'the militia' the particle 'the' is used indicating a specific group. Tie that in with the Constitution's grant of power to the Congress in that regard:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .
​

Combining the 'well regulated militia' part of the second amendment with the express authority of Congress to summon the militia, today we would be talking about the National Guard. They are 'well regulated', being subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and having regular periodic training.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In regard to 'the militia' the particle 'the' is used indicating a specific group. Tie that in with the Constitution's grant of power to the Congress in that regard:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .
​

Combining the 'well regulated militia' part of the second amendment with the express authority of Congress to summon the militia, today we would be talking about the National Guard. They are 'well regulated', being subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and having regular periodic training.

However "militia" is defined, I think it's clear that the "militia" that the Second Amendment arms is the same "militia" the Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to discipline.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Where in the second ammendment do you see any reference to self-defense? It is simply not there. It mentions the security of a free state.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This thread is for discussing the second amendment civilly and cordially.



Feel free to express why you endorse it, and why you think it should not be changed.

Because I have a God-given right as a free person to protect myself or to hunt, wildlife control, etc. Also, it's just not a good idea to mess with the Bill of Rights. Those are the foundational liberties of our nation. America wouldn't be America anymore, and that's a scary thought.

 

[Truth in love]

Notice. It starts with 'well regulated'. Many Americans ignore that part in favor of the last part 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. Should give outsiders a glimpse of the issues we are having.

The comma matters.

it does cite a purpose, but the clear 100% unambiguous statement of the right is the people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where in the second ammendment do you see any reference to self-defense? It is simply not there. It mentions the security of a free state.

This points out the usefulness of considering the
context, ie, the circumstances of the founders.
Original intent can be gleaned from communication
of their day. After all, we don't take the 1st Amendment
literally...we look at intent, which incudes future forms
of "the press".

 

[F1fan]

Because I have a God-given right as a free person to protect myself or to hunt, wildlife control, etc. Also, it's just not a good idea to mess with the Bill of Rights. Those are the foundational liberties of our nation. America wouldn't be America anymore, and that's a scary thought.

Rights are given by our representatives. No gods are known to exist.

 

[F1fan]

The comma matters.

it does cite a purpose, but the clear 100% unambiguous statement of the right is the people.

To form militias for the security of the state.

Do you think this right extends to mass murderers who kill innocent people? If you don't, then the right is limited.

 

[F1fan]

This points out the usefulness of considering the
context, ie, the circumstances of the founders.
Original intent can be gleaned from communication
of their day. After all, we don't take the 1st Amendment
literally...we look at intent, which incudes future forms
of "the press".

The intent was that the USA had no standing army, yet was still under threat by other nations, especially England. The right for the people to defend their nation was a right, thus could own and bear arms against an aggressor to defend their nation, until there was a standing professional army. That came in handy during the war of 1812.

 

[Revoltingest]

To form militias for the security of the state.

Do you think this right extends to mass murderers who kill innocent people? If you don't, then the right is limited.

Many rights are limited, eg, imprisoned felons
cannot travel, possess guns, or enjoy the right
against warrantless search & seizure.

 

[Wandering Monk]

"A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records. [101] Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law. [105][106]"

"Despite images of the “Wild West” from movies, cities in the frontier often required visitors to check their guns with the sheriff before entering the town. [108] In Oct. 1876, Deadwood, Dakota Territory passed a law stating that no one could fire a gun without the mayor’s consent. [109] A sign in Dodge City, Kansas in 1879 read, “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.” [108] The first law passed in Dodge City was a gun control law that read “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” [108]:

History of Gun Control - ProCon.org

 

[F1fan]

Many rights are limited, eg, imprisoned felons
cannot travel, possess guns, or enjoy the right
against warrantless search & seizure.

Most of these mass killers have no priors, but a history of emotional problems. Yet they still were sold AR15s and went on a shooting rampage. So I'm not sure the right to own such a gun is something to be taken lightly. I suggest more intensive questions be asked of those who want them. Get red flagged, no gun for you. Think of the 21 people at Uvalde before you respond, as they could still be alive today.

 

[Revoltingest]

The intent was that the USA had no standing army, yet was still under threat by other nations, especially England. The right for the people to defend their nation was a right, thus could own and bear arms against an aggressor to defend their nation, until there was a standing professional army. That came in handy during the war of 1812.

There's no "until" in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Think of the 21 people at Uvalde before you respond, as they could still be alive today.

So rather than a rational response, you ask me to get
all emotional about a tragedy instead of considering
the larger picture, eh. And perhaps you missed my
several posts advocating red flag laws & procedures.

 

[F1fan]

There's no "until" in the 2nd Amendment.

There was no standing army. Eventually there was one, so the 2nd amendment became redundant. It served its purpose and then the purpose became obsolete. That should be understood.

Right wingers today are interpreting this amendment in ways that do not follow the text or the context of the time it was written.