The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Commodore]

You like to assign a lot of positions and opinions to me that I haven't claimed for myself. Cut it the f out.

So I'm wrong in assuming you'd be upset if the government started requiring free speech licenses that you had to pay for?

A Silenced fully-automatic Mac-10 is a type of "Arms", so is a 84mm Carl Gustaf Recoilless Rifle, I want my 40mm bofors autocannon!

All of which are restricted by government, which illustrates my point that the right to bear arms is already severely restricted by the government at a level which no other right is restricted. Limiting the types of arms people can buy would be like the government saying you can exercise your right to free speech but then they put out a list of opinions that will get you sent to prison if to express them without proper licensing.

"well-regulated"

Which at the time it was written did not mean what it means now. And when interpreting the Constitution, you have to look at it in the frame of what things meant in 1791, not what they mean in 2018.

Here's a piece that breaks down quite well why the gun control crowd's constant screeching of "well regulated" doesn't really mean anything.

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Basically, the "well-regulated" only applies to the militia, not the right to bear arms. Even then, the Constitution does not specify in the 2nd Amendment WHO is to regulate the militia. And according to the 10th Amendment, any power not expressly given to the federal government goes to the states or to the people. So really in that context, all federal firearm regulations should be unconstitutional. So at best, all you should really be able to get is maybe some gun laws at the state level. But even that should be iffy since again, "well-regulated" only refers to the militia, not the right to bear arms.

Maybe I'll get an "Abolish ATF" movement started since calling for the abolition of federal agencies seems to be trendy nowadays.

do you think government should subsidize the gun industry so that any American can get a free gun?

You know, I have actually floated that idea around other places I frequent. And yeah, I think there should be an income-based gun assistance program for those who can't afford it. If for no other reason than to see the anti-gun crowd pout about the fact that their tax dollars are going towards putting guns in people's hands.

 

[cardgame]

@Lexicus care to elaborate on felony gun ownership? I am not aware of any exceptions to the rule that bans them for life once convicted. I am aware that the right to vote is restricted in a similar way, but there are ways to appeal and fight that. Not so on gun ownership.

For the record, I support the lifetime ban and persecution for violent offenders. Not as much for nonviolent offenders though.

 

[Lexicus]

@Lexicus care to elaborate on felony gun ownership? I am not aware of any exceptions to the rule that bans them for life once convicted. I am aware that the right to vote is restricted in a similar way, but there are ways to appeal and fight that. Not so on gun ownership.

https://legalbeagle.com/5444897-rights-denied-convicted-felons.html

 

[Commodore]

https://legalbeagle.com/5444897-rights-denied-convicted-felons.html

Nope. Voting rights can be restored. Sure, felons have to jump through some serious hoops to get their voting rights restored, but they can be restored. The same cannot be said for the right to bear arms for convicted felons. That is the only Constitutional right that can be permanently stripped away with no avenue for restoration.

Most of the other things listed by your link aren't "rights". There is no "right" to hold public office, there is no "right" to public assistance, and there is no "right" to enlist in the military. None of those are rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[Arwon]

If we are going to allow any idiot to be able to express their opinion freely, then we also have to allow any idiot to carry a gun freely.

lol, no you don't

 

[Lexicus]

Most of the other things listed by your link aren't "rights". There is no "right" to hold public office, there is no "right" to public assistance, and there is no "right" to enlist in the military. None of those are rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

All of those things are guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. By contrast, the 2nd Amendment does not actually guarantee any right to firearms contrary to Scalia's idiotic "interpretation" of it.

 

[cardgame]

To interpret no guarantee to firearms from the second amendment has gotta be up there on the top 10 most revisionist histories of all time.

 

[Arwon]

I mean it's clearly about forming civilian militia and originates with a feudal obligation to have swords so you can protect the king, but whatevs, those militia groups are generally pretty loopy these days too

 

[Lexicus]

To interpret no guarantee to firearms from the second amendment has gotta be up there on the top 10 most revisionist histories of all time.

Well, a lot of people think so which is why I want to just get rid of it and take the guns.

 

[cardgame]

I wouldn't mind amending it, if only so we can all understand/decide what it freaking means.

 

[metalhead]

Either civilians can possess arms sufficient to fight a modern standing army - tanks, nukes, stealth bombers, EMPs, etc. - or we should probably admit the 2nd Amendment is completely outdated and makes no sense in the context of modern statehood.

 

[God of Kings]

From Toronto, Canada, there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting

Yes, it's the same city where the van attack occurred a few months ago.

 

[Broken_Erika]

And once again it's someone with a history of severe depression and psychosis.

 

[Commodore]

I mean it's clearly about forming civilian militia and originates with a feudal obligation to have swords so you can protect the king, but whatevs, those militia groups are generally pretty loopy these days too

Nope. The right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment is separate from the right to form a militia. Just as the 1st Amendment guarantees four separate rights, the 2nd Amendment guarantees two separate rights: the right to form a militia, and the right to bear arms.

I wouldn't mind amending it, if only so we can all understand/decide what it freaking means.

Seems pretty clear to me. It says we need a well-regulated militia, but doesn't specify who should do the regulating. And according to the 10th Amendment, that means the power of regulating the militia falls to the states and the people. Secondly, it very clearly states that the right to bear arms belongs to the people, not Congress or the various state governments and that right is not to be infringed upon.

 

[Samson]

Nope. The right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment is separate from the right to form a militia. Just as the 1st Amendment guarantees four separate rights, the 2nd Amendment guarantees two separate rights: the right to form a militia, and the right to bear arms.



Seems pretty clear to me. It says we need a well-regulated militia, but doesn't specify who should do the regulating. And according to the 10th Amendment, that means the power of regulating the militia falls to the states and the people. Secondly, it very clearly states that the right to bear arms belongs to the people, not Congress or the various state governments and that right is not to be infringed upon.

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.

It seems to me very far from certain that this is making 2 separate statements, and if indeed the original author specifically meant 2 separate things they really were bad at making themselves clear. Had they just added a full stop it could be more clear, but the way they have phrased it the obvious interpretation is that they are talking about 1 thing, the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.

 

[Commodore]

It seems to me very far from certain that this is making 2 separate statements, and if indeed the original author specifically meant 2 separate things they really were bad at making themselves clear. Had they just added a full stop it could be more clear, but the way they have phrased it the obvious interpretation is that they are talking about 1 thing, the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.

Except the 1st Amendment is written in a similar manner as the 2nd, yet no one seems to have any trouble interpreting it. You also have to look at how things were written throughout the entire document. Throughout the entire document, examples can been seen of the Founding Fathers using commas instead of periods to separate ideas that, while still related to each other, are still separate concepts on their own. We also see that when the Founding Fathers wanted a specific power to go to a certain entity, they specifically named that entity as having that power. In that context it becomes clear that the Founding Fathers did not want Congress or any other federal authority to have control over the militia, and that the right to bear arms is the sole domain of "the people". Meaning no government entity, federal or state, has the authority to infringe upon that right.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Come to think of it; "Congreff shall make no law." The constitution doesn't actually say congress at all.

Those sneaky bastards.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Except the 1st Amendment is written in a similar manner as the 2nd, yet no one seems to have any trouble interpreting it.

Its quite a stretch to say that "no one seems to have any trouble interpreting the 1st Amendment."

 

[Sommerswerd]

The amount of people who can be moved to action by the words of Rush Limbaugh would surely be dwarfed by the number of people that can be moved to action by money.

Meh...

 

[metalhead]

Except the 1st Amendment is written in a similar manner as the 2nd, yet no one seems to have any trouble interpreting it. You also have to look at how things were written throughout the entire document. Throughout the entire document, examples can been seen of the Founding Fathers using commas instead of periods to separate ideas that, while still related to each other, are still separate concepts on their own. We also see that when the Founding Fathers wanted a specific power to go to a certain entity, they specifically named that entity as having that power. In that context it becomes clear that the Founding Fathers did not want Congress or any other federal authority to have control over the militia, and that the right to bear arms is the sole domain of "the people". Meaning no government entity, federal or state, has the authority to infringe upon that right.

So then the U.S. Army is unconstitutional?