Quiet, Almost too quiet

Thought this would be about the state of OT.
 
1192ckcomic-open-carry-patriots.jpg


cartoon.jpg
 
I see so many mistakes in my work. Keeping to the guidelines is critical to make the accounting accurate. Two of the incidents had two shooters. (including the slaughter in Las Vegas recently.) The corrected count is:

Total Incidents 13
Total killed 57
 
In Las Vegas, the mythical good guy with the gun ended up getting killed.

Exactly.

One also wonders what some other unintended consequences of an NRA paradise would be. Man draws gun and fires on crowd. NRA guy draws and shoots him. NRA guy #2 sees NRA guy #1 shooting a man, assumes he's the shooter, and shoots him. And so on, and so on.
 
You're already living in one for the most part Phrossack. For the most part they don't want people to own howitzers. Cue JR making a joke that this is because black people would get howitzers and a correct reading of the 2nd let's people own tanks, the dirty NRA gun grabbers..
 
Does the 2nd amendment actually support gun rights?

Wasn't it intended to give the States' rights to raise militias rather free firearm ownership?
 
Limited to militias? Not according to present or past SCOTUS ruling, no. The court could change its mind, but I'd say a constitutional amendment is unlikely.
 
Does the 2nd amendment actually support gun rights?

Wasn't it intended to give the States' rights to raise militias rather free firearm ownership?

The way it was explained to me in college was that it is a simple comma that makes all the difference in the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

2nd Amendment said:
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.

That comma between "state" and "the" makes the part about militias and the part about keeping and bearing arms two separate ideas. So according to my professor the 2nd Amendment guarantees two rights: The right to form a militia and the right to keep and bear arms. Now if that comma was not there then we would only have the right to form militias and only militia members could keep and bear arms.
 
I don't see that. If the comma wasn't there you'd have a poorly constructed sentence; nothing more, imo.
 
I don't see that. If the comma wasn't there you'd have a poorly constructed sentence; nothing more, imo.

Not according to Constitutional attorneys apparently. They seems to think the comma makes all the difference in the world.
 
Not according to Constitutional attorneys apparently. They seems to think the comma makes all the difference in the world.

But they don't. Not really.

Instead they find middle ground, restricting rather than extending the state of affairs at ratification. Someone once said that if the 2nd Amendment was enforced like the 6th, we would all be required to own and maintain a weapon.

This was always an academic discussion for me, since I have no real inclination for or against gun ownership. It seems the plain language favors the NRA position. OTOH, the amendment grew out of British laws which are now much stricter. I think the point is validly made that the first thing fascists did was go for the guns. That said, it would not be on my top five list of things defining fascism.

Does the 2nd amendment actually support gun rights?

Wasn't it intended to give the States' rights to raise militias rather free firearm ownership?

Whether it does or not is debatable. There is no room to debate intent. The amendment is intended to make approve gun ownership at a level above Congress and State Legislatures.

J
 
I think the point is validly made that the first thing fascists did was go for the guns.
Was it really?
 
Fascists certainly don't seem averse to guns, that's for sure. It's almost like their signature trait.
 
Fascists are picky in who they let get them. Which is why revocation of rights, be they gun ownership or voting in a racially biased manner is so troubling.
 
Germany and Italy at least.

J

Fascists certainly don't seem averse to guns, that's for sure. It's almost like their signature trait.

Nazi Germany restricted gun rights for Jews and politically suspect people, though it vastly liberalised gun rights for others. To the point that even the restrictions on Jews owning guns were largely de-facto non-existent for most part because Jews with non-Jewish friends could plausibly acquire firearms because there was little to no background checking.

In many ways, Nazi Germany was pretty Somalia-esque. For instance, another major Nazi concept was that of Gesundesvolksempfunden (which roughly translates from German into something like "healthy peasant common sense") which enabled the first antisemitic incidents such as the Kristallnacht by essentially shutting down legal protections that otherwise may have existed. The SS, far from being a government organ, was actually far more comparable to a powerful US militia or Hezbollah, i.e. an extremely powerful non-state actor. Nazi Germany also had a fairly decentralised structure of Reichsgaue and Reichskommissariaten for the occupied territories where senior Nazis openly bickered with each other, sometimes in a lethal manner. On top of that, the Nazi bureaucracy that participated in the Holocaust did not take orders from the Hitler cabinet but from the SS.
 
Back
Top Bottom