The Definitive U.S. 2nd Amendment Debate Thread

[Bugfatty300]

Ooo! Caught by my own trick..!

But consider this: gun politics don't live in a vacuum; as a matter of convinience, it seems to be married to at very least a theme in american politics. Not every gun owner or gun advocate is of one particular political stripe, but you have to admit that the spectrum within the gun-owning community might not represent america as a whole.

Well considering that nearly half of the households in this country has a gun in them I think gun culture does represent a significant portion of the country.

Given that, does only, in practical terms at least, arming one side of a political debate or discours seem like a bad idea?

If you agree that its a bad idea for one side of the political debate to be armed then do you also agree that its a bad idea for the government and police to be armed and not the people?

Anyway, no one arms the gun owners other than themselves. Anti-gun people have every right to own a gun if they choose to. It grinds my gears to say it but its true. James Brady can go buy an AK if he wants. So I think your "one political side being armed" argument falls short.

OOOoo. Just thought of a good analogy:

Liberals in the US use mass protests more than conservatives do. What kind of argument would that be to ban or restrict lawful public protests?

 

[.Shane.]

Anyway, no one arms the gun owners other than themselves. Anti-gun people have every right to own a gun if they choose to. It grinds my gears to say it but its true. James Brady can go buy an AK if he wants. So I think your "one political side being armed" argument falls short.

Ah... "anti-gun", the biggest fallacy of all. Most people I know who are labeled "anti-gun" (myself included) are no more "anti-gun" than the person who wants mandatory seat belts is "anti-car".

The pro-gun people would have a lot more credibility in my eyes if they quit wrecklessly labeling people per NRA brainwashing/bs/talking points.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Ah... "anti-gun", the biggest fallacy of all. Most people I know who are labeled "anti-gun" (myself included) are no more "anti-gun" than the person who wants mandatory seat belts is "anti-car".

For one I never called you "anti-gun." Infact I try not to lable anyone directly on here and yes, there are definetly some anti-gun people out there and I will refer to them as such when refering to them in a discussion.

The pro-gun people would have a lot more credibility in my eyes if they quit wrecklessly labeling people per NRA brainwashing/bs/talking points.

This from someone who uses the term "gun nuts"?

 

[.Shane.]

For one I never called you "anti-gun." Infact try not to lable anyone directly on here. And yes, their are definetly some anti-gun people out there and I reserve to call them such.

Correct, there are, but I think its over-used and, I'd wager, most people who the pro-gun crowd considers anti-gun are not, in fact, anti-gun.

This from someone who uses the term "gun nuts"?

ROFL, I thought it was seen as a term of pride by some?
*cough*IglooDude*cough*

 

[.Shane.]

Just curious what the pro-gun crowd thinks of this idea....

See, I'm of the opinion that if truly tested the 2nd Amendment would be found to be a collective right and one that has, essentially, been negated due to the creation of formal state militias decades ago.

Also, the real reasons that most people own guns are not even covered by the 2nd Amendment. These would be hunting, personal defense, sport, collections, etc....

So, I propose that we either scrap the 2nd Amend (or wait for it to be conclusively resolved as I mentioned above) and have a new amendment that protects gun ownership for the real reasons that the majority of people own guns in the modern context.

 

[Bugfatty300]

ROFL, I thought it was seen as a term of pride by some?
*cough*IglooDude*cough*

Yes, I do the same out of jest. But "Gun nuts" when used negatively is as deragatory as "sheeple" or "brady idiots" and should be left out of serious discussion for credibility sake.

When I refer to "anti-gun" I refer to those who are infact "anti-gun." Personally I consider anyone who favors taking any guns away from or keeping any guns away from law-abiding people as anti-gun.

 

[.Shane.]

When I refer to "anti-gun" I refer to those who are infact "anti-gun." Personally I consider anyone who favors taking any guns away from or keeping any guns away from law-abiding people as anti-gun.

Well, let me put it this way. Let's say that I don't think anyone should be allowed to have an AK-47... or an uzi. Am I anti-gun? Well, I don't think anyone should be allowed to have a street legal car that goes 250 MPH. Would that make me anti-car? No.

 

[IglooDame]

ROFL, I thought it was seen as a term of pride by some?
*cough*IglooDude*cough*

I use it to rhetorically disarm opponents. Can't speak for anyone else.

Just curious what the pro-gun crowd thinks of this idea....

See, I'm of the opinion that if truly tested the 2nd Amendment would be found to be a collective right and one that has, essentially, been negated due to the creation of formal state militias decades ago.

Also, the real reasons that most people own guns are not even covered by the 2nd Amendment. These would be hunting, personal defense, sport, collections, etc....

So, I propose that we either scrap the 2nd Amend (or wait for it to be conclusively resolved as I mentioned above) and have a new amendment that protects gun ownership for the real reasons that the majority of people own guns in the modern context.

I oppose your proposal based on three key items:

#1, I disagree that the "militia/defense from tyrrany" element is no longer applicable.
#2, I disagree that it doesn't already cover personal defense.
#3, I don't think the folks that oppose gun ownership currently would go for it.
Oh, and #4 - while I oppose all bans in principle, I don't think hunting, sport, or collections worthy of a constitutional amendment.

 

[Bugfatty300]

See, I'm of the opinion that if truly tested the 2nd Amendment would be found to be a collective right and one that has, essentially, been negated due to the creation of formal state militias decades ago.

According to federal code, the militia includes the national guard and all able bodied males.

Also, the real reasons that most people own guns are not even covered by the 2nd Amendment. These would be hunting, personal defense, sport, collections, etc....

So, I propose that we either scrap the 2nd Amend (or wait for it to be conclusively resolved as I mentioned above) and have a new amendment that protects gun ownership for the real reasons that the majority of people own guns in the modern context.

Before I discuss in depth can you tell me what difference you think it would make except make it easier to ban evil "assault weapons." Besides the fact that people today own guns for pretty much the same reason they owned them in 1776. I don't really see much of difference.

 

[sonorakitch]

Just curious what the pro-gun crowd thinks of this idea....

See, I'm of the opinion that if truly tested the 2nd Amendment would be found to be a collective right and one that has, essentially, been negated due to the creation of formal state militias decades ago.

Also, the real reasons that most people own guns are not even covered by the 2nd Amendment. These would be hunting, personal defense, sport, collections, etc....

So, I propose that we either scrap the 2nd Amend (or wait for it to be conclusively resolved as I mentioned above) and have a new amendment that protects gun ownership for the real reasons that the majority of people own guns in the modern context.

Don't try and scrap the 2nd Amendment. My homestate passed a bill in the legislature in 2000 that required mandatory succession from the Union if the 2nd Amendment was ever repealed.

I believe there were several other states that passed such bills as well.

Seeing that all my military buddies are gun-lovers (there, that is a better term than gun nuts), I don't know how such an act would play out.

~Chris

 

[Bugfatty300]

Seeing that all my military buddies are gun-lovers (there, that is a better term than gun nuts), I don't know how such an act would play out.

I personally prefer the term "boomstick enthusiast" or as shane can call me from now on: "un arma de fuego entusiasta" Edit: Or is it "un enthusiata arma de fuego?"

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well, let me put it this way. Let's say that I don't think anyone should be allowed to have an AK-47... or an uzi. Am I anti-gun?

Well, I already own one of those and would like to own the other. Does that make me a gun nut?

Unfortunately for some, the so called "assault weapons" are already embedded deep in US gun and shooting culture, probably even more than so called "hunting rifles."

Which is something I believe "anti-assault-weapon-people" (If you aren't offended at that term) and apparently some in the hunting community have yet to realize.

 

[sonorakitch]

I personally prefer the term "boomstick enthusiast" or as shane can call me from now on: "un arma de fuego entusiasta"

Hahahaha....damn good one. Never heard that before. A new word for my dictionary. Thanks!

~Chris

 

[.Shane.]

#1, I disagree that the "militia/defense from tyrrany" element is no longer applicable.
#2, I disagree that it doesn't already cover personal defense.

The 2A doesn't say anything about tyranny.

Other than that, what do you disagree with? If you read the pertinent discussions from the federalist papers they all deal w/ the aspect of militias, etc... They (Hamilton, Madison, Jay) don't make any arguments about needing guns for hunting or sport, etc... And, as written, the 2A doesn't address issues of hunting, etc...

See the problem is in the language. Phrases such as "the people" and "bear arms" have fairly specific meanings to that era.

For example "bear arms" is almost always used in a military sense. There's a study that examined the usage of that phrase and, essentially, they found its akin to the word "military service" or summat.

Regarding the militia....It was Teddy Roosevelt himself who oversaw the formalizing and overhaul of the state militia system. As you know a big component of the 2A is "a well regulated militia". We have that and its called the <insert state here> National Guard, not the "Michigan Militia" or Ruby Ridge. There is a court case that says that National guard IS the militia as defined in the Constitution (however, to be fair it didn't specify the 2A, but its unlikely that the FF's had several differing types of militia in mind).

Also, keep in mind that the history of federal litigation is not kind to the 2A.

Lastly, this idea of collective vs. individual rights.... Let me elaborate. The BoRs were not written originally as individual rights. They were simply rights that the fed govt was prevented from interferring with, meaning that they were free for the states to regulate.

However, after the 14th Amendment it was found that certain rights were INDIVIDUAL rights and thus the states could not regulate them away from you. What has since happened is that each of the BoRs have been individually tested and thus, the first amendment, for example, is legally an individual right. This is called "incorporation". The 2A has NOT been incorporated as an individual right.

Here's an interesting read on incorporation.

#3, I don't think the folks that oppose gun ownership currently would go for it.
Oh, and #4 - while I oppose all bans in principle, I don't think hunting, sport, or collections worthy of a constitutional amendment.

I'm saying as an alternative if the current 2A was found to legally allow for full regulation (which could lead to banning) of private ownership of guns.

 

[Bugfatty300]

There's a study that examined the usage of that phrase and, essentially, they found its akin to the word "military service" or summat.

"The right of the people to endure military service shale not be infringed"..??

Bear arms means: Weapons. Specifically military small arms.
The People means: Well....the people. You and me.

There is a court case that says that National guard IS the militia as defined in the Constitution (however, to be fair it didn't specify the 2A, but its unlikely that the FF's had several differing types of militia in mind).

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

US Code &#167; 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are&#8212;

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I'm saying as an alternative if the current 2A was found to legally allow for full regulation (which could lead to banning) of private ownership of guns.

Regulation DOES lead to banning. Look at the UK and Australia.

And yes. If you ban "assault weapons" then that is banning is it not?

 

[.Shane.]

Bear arms means: Weapons. Specifically military small arms. The People means: Well....the people. You and me.

That's a modern understanding. In 1790 and as used in other legal documents of the time, they do not mean what they do today.

"bearing arms" and "the People" as used in common and legal language of that era do not match how people like to use them today.

A big part of why people misunderstand this is that they don't understand or choose to ignore the evolution of language.

Regardless a very interesting side-note in this whole discussion is the use of commas and semi-colons in the various incarnations of the 2A as passed by the individual states.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are&#8212;
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I think this is superceded by recent case law states that the militia as defined by the Constitution is limited to the state organized National Guard.

But, for sake of argument, let's say there is an "unorganized militia". Given that the 2A specifically says a "well regulated" militia, that's a pretty good indication that the "unorganized militia" would not be covered by 2A protection. Thus, the state National guard meets this requirement, but those 4 guys preparing for the apocolypse in the high Sierra Nevadas would not. Isn't "unorganized" the opposite of "well regulated"?

Your thoughts on incorporation? (and the implication regarding individual vs. collective rights?)

As for the thing you edited in, I understand it would likely lead to banning. I'm not advocating it. I think that its a probability THAT if a case ever got to the SC they would find that the 2A is a collective right and that you'd be in danger of losing your precious guns. IF that was the case I'm simply arguing the best approach is a new amendment that better identifies why people own guns and how they use them.

 

[Bugfatty300]

That's a modern understanding. In 1790 and as used in other legal documents of the time, they do not mean what they do today.

No thats not the modern understanding.

Arms in 1790 = Individual weapons, small arms. Any thing bigger than what a single man could carry was referred to as "ordinance."

Arms in 2007 = Any type of weapons, bombs, missiles, nuclear warheads, ect.

We'll have to agree to disagree because recent case law states that the militia as defined by the Constitution is limited to the state organized National Guard.

Maybe you could link to this recent case. That federal code clearly states what is defined as militia.

Also, given that the phrasing is "well regulated" that's a good indication that the courts would agree that the state National guard meets this requirement, but that 4 guys in preparing for the apocolypse in the high Sierra Nevadas would not.

OK. I let this the first time but would please stop equating pro-2A people with people like David Karesh, Randy Weaver or ultra-survivalist? Please for sake of a serious and clean debate...

And I never said that those people were the militia. I'm simply telling you what US law says:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

The national guard may meet one definition of the term "regulated" but that doesn't negate the fact that US code &#167; 311 makes no mention of the term "regulated" when decribing the American militia classes. Nor does it negate the fact that the 2A clearly says "the right of the people." Not "right of the militia."

 

[.Shane.]

I like how you ignored the bulk of my prior two posts. There's a lot there. Still digesting? Sorry, you're a pretty good poster, I should be more fair, so take this as good-natured ribbing.

I think I've tried to be fair and reply to your posts in the main. Or maybe I haven't? I dunno.

If I have time and interest later I'll reply to your latest post.

 

[Che Guava]

Once again we seem to be back to the definitions game: what is a militia? what constitutes arms for a miltia? Who are "the people"?

I always found it something of a contradiction that "the people" in the US context, are simultaeneously the federal government, the state governments, local groups (municipalities, citizen's groups, etc) as well as individuals? Who are "the people" to you?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I like how you ignored the bulk of my prior two posts. There's a lot there.

I didn't see it as I was busy editing my own posts. So anyway....

The bulk I "ignored"

Your thoughts on incorporation? (and the implication regarding individual vs. collective rights?)

As for the thing you edited in, I understand it would likely lead to banning. I'm not advocating it. I think that its a probability THAT if a case ever got to the SC they would find that the 2A is a collective right and that you'd be in danger of losing your precious guns. IF that was the case I'm simply arguing the best approach is a new amendment that better identifies why people own guns and how they use them.

A recent big case already decided it was an idividual right as well as others influential government entities:

United States Department Of Justice Affirms Second Amendment As Individual Right
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1294

Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Bear Arms.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070320/cm_rcp/yes_the_second_amendment_guara

On March 9, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a groundbreaking ruling. It declared in a 2-1 decision that the Washington, D.C. ban on handgun possession in private homes, in effect since 1976, is unconstitutional.

The court reached this conclusion after stating unequivocally that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals and not just "the militia."