The 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear and the Supreme Court has never suggested that it only applies to militia members, quite the opposite actually.
There was never a point in history when the 2nd Amendment was considered to only be a part of the militia, that's left wing revisionist history. If you don't believe me pull up the court rulings that say different.
If you really think black Americans open carrying is going to change the mind of conservatives, then you're crazy.
@gotc147 On the last point: that's exactly why when Reagan was governor they changed the laws in California.
On the first: It was considered a collective right or individual right deriving from the collective right as opposed to a purely individual right by most circuit courts prior to 2001.
In any case, its your country, just don't bring them into ours.
Yeah, I'd say in a functioning democracy people shouldn't have to be afraid of their government. But then again I don't know the situation in the US that well
No. I'm sick of this gun debate B. S. Let's focus taking all guns out of the criminals hands and leave law abiding citizens the hell alone with their guns inculding assault rifles.
It's the criminals that are causing crimes and murder not the good citizens, so why keep harassing them about their damn guns?
And how do you relieve a criminal of his gun? Laws. What's making it difficult is that it's commonplace to own multiple guns in America. If you wanted to take all apples away from criminals, how would you locate said criminals? Everyone has apples, but some are apparently going to be illegal apples at some point. It's like finding a very particular needle in a stack of needles.
No wonder there still isn't any proper legislation.
To elaborate: you need laws to make it possible to take said guns away from said criminals. Otherwise it's theft, even if the police does it. There has to be some ground on which law enforcement can determine that someone is not allowed a gun and a criminal record is not the best way seeing as it comes after the crime.
People are not born criminal or law-abiding. The good guys-bad guys trope is just another version of identity politics in which the world is divided neatly into good and evil people. That is not how the world works. You can talk about good and evil actions, but that is about it. And that is my problem with the idea of the "responsible gun owner". Sure he's responsible - until the day he has a mental breakdown and murders his family. Or colleagues. Or classmates.
Not really. You live in a country that has the least restrictions, that's how it should be. I hate seeing all of these new laws that are practically restricting our freedom, not even just the US but here in the UK. Just look at any legislation in any country in the west that is being passed and you'll see what I mean.
The time to do something about guns in the US is far too late, guns are everywhere. The only thing that can be done is restrictions.
That would mean freedom of speech is limited to quill and parchment and shouting distance and freedom of the press is limited to old school printing presses.
THINK about what you're going to say before you say it.
Like what @madhatters54 said Not outdated just too liberally used. Handguns and shotguns for self defense fine, rifles for hunting and recreation, cool (If you tell me an AR 15 is a rifle shut up, it uses an intermediate round in its most basic form. If the military doesn't classify that as a rifle round then why are you.) What's not cool are guns like the AR 15 that aren't good at self defense or hunting but are great for killing a whole bunch of unarmed people
Actually, the AR-15 is an excellent hunting AND home-defense weapon, falling as it does into the category of "scout carbine". Great saddle gun, too. Quite popular for everything from raccoon to deer. I might not hunt elk, or bear with it, but it's good for anything smaller, and MUCH easier to handle in the woods and high brush than, say, a shotgun or a long rifle. As for self-defense, it's and it's equivalents are the weapon of choice for the line soldier and the street cop. What makes you say it isn't?
@taleswapper an excellent hunting rifle? Coyotes sure, rabbits? Yeah, anythijg larger and I wouldn't trust a 5.56 to do it quickly enough to be humane. As for why a shotgun? Let me, put it this way, in my town Billerica Massachusetts which is rated as one if the safest in the country. Had a black bear jusr walk down a street where people were having a pool party. If the bear had attacked? A 5.56 would have taken a while, it would have died sure, but it would have also have had time to kill a couple of kids. A 12 gauge loaded with buckshot or slugs? The bear would be dead before anyone got seriously hurt. A 5.56 round is not full rifle sized, its intermediete larger than a pistol, smaller than a rifle. As for why handguns are better for everyday carry? Well that's obvious, its easier to carry a.38 or.45 all day than slug a full sized AR around. As for soldiers? Men are easy to put down. The advantages are having a 30 round mag of fmj gives a soldier the range they need
@taleswapper continued, However its also worth noting that when the marine corps knows they have to do house clearing and such, they prefer that at least one marine, usually on point carries a shotgun, because even 150 years after the invention of the shotgun shell, there is still nothing better for close quarters than a shotgun.
@taleswapper you may be good, but I'd rather be sure to get the job done, I wouldn't trust anythijg less than a full rifle round to put them down. Anything larger than a whitetail, I would prefer something like a.45-70
So, we've established that the AR15 IS an effective hunting tool for anything smaller than whitetail, and larger than a squirrel. That Both the military and the police find the round (5.56 NATO) useful a self-defense tool. So that puts paid to the argument that you originally made, that it was neither.
@taleswapper except it isn't There are a dozens different weapons that do it better and the police and military don't use it as a self defense weapon, they use it as an offensive weapon, a person defending their home is never going to need to put a man down 100 yards away
Well, "better" is a subjective evaluation; it has no metric. And all firearm use is offensive, it's not a shield. But you can use an offensive weapon in a defensive manner. It's quite common. You "defend" yourself by making the other guy incapable or unwilling to continue.
@taleswapper there is a difference, engaging insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan is an offensive. Protecting your home amd family is home defense
No, the 2ns amendment has always been abouy citizens protecting themselves from the goverment. You think 900 dead from rifles is bad? Try 1,500 a day from an out of control government.
There's literally no chance in hell the citizens of the US could stand against the US government considering how overfunded it is. Unless you allow citizens access to all sorts of super high tech, super dangerous military technology (and tbh not even then), which I would hope you recognize as the idiocy it is.
@cipher42 illiterate 17 years olds hiding in caves amd riding donkeys seem to be doing a damn good job standing against the military so your assertion is laughably false.
Sources? Because I rather suspect the situation your referring to has some rather significant differences from the hypothetical situation we're discussing. I doubt what is going on in your example is an active overthrow of a government, which is what were talking about here. Holding a small area/force against foreign troops is pretty motherfucking different from actively trying to seize control of an area from a group native to that territory.
I said the 2nd amendment is the citizen's protection against an out of controle goverment.
You said that the citizens could not stand up the U. S. military.
I said thats laughable becuase the insergents in Afganistan are doing just that in smaller numbers and not anywhere nearly as well armed as the American public.
So the reasons for creating the 2nd Amendment was valid in 1791, its valid today and for as long as we are governed by men not angles the 2nd ammendment will always be valid.
And as I explained, the folks in Afghanistan are defending a territory where they're on their home turf, not attacking/trying to gain control over an area already controlled by a native force. Those are completely different forms of warfare. Plus, there's the fact of how cyberwarfare would play in. In the US, the US government has far more tools for surveilling and otherwise controlling the public already in place than exist in Afghanistan.
You think American citizens wouldn't be defending their home territory?
Also survalience is a large complex structure that takes a lot of smart and hard working people to maintain. It wouldn't take but a small percentage of the country to break that.
One fact about the American Revolution people dont understand is only 30% of the country wanted independence. Among those that 30% only 10% lifted a finger to do anything. Among the 10% less than 2% were invloved enough to make any difference. This is proven out over and over again with uprisings around the world, it really does not take much, usually only 2% with access to means of fighting back against tyranny.
However as long as the 2nd ammendment is upheld with orginal intent, thats a road we will never have to travel down. So yes I will take the school shooting to save the country from ever having death camps.
I think such defense is useless. What has to happen to stop government abuse is an overthrow of the government, for which you need to ATTACK, not judt defend.
Ya I think you underestimate the capacity of our surveillance. Recall that the US military is astoundingly overfunded and absolutely has the resources for this shit. They managed to surveill people back in the 50s during the red scare pretty fucking effectively (an era of crazy government abuses and a distinct lack of armed resistance from the people) I think nowadays with all the advances in tech theyve made it'd be pretty damn easy for them to keep track of folks.
Also, fucking hilarious how you think the citizens of the US (which, as I noted have something of a history of NOT standing up against horrible government abuses) could overthrow the government which has the most overfunded military in the world and plenty of practice effectively fighting and surveilling other countries.
Cipher42 do you think our telecommunication systems are magic? Seriously do you think they are magic? These systems are unimaginably complex with endless weak points. I have several family members who maintain those systems and if any one of them screw up their job then huge sections of the system goes down. It wouldn't take a 2% rebellion from telecom workers to completely crash the system, more like 0.001%
Next up are you in a military family? Because I am. I have lived on army bases, I know that over funded military is 50% medical expenses. I also know the kids that are put at the controls of our military. Its the best most powerful military machine ever created but it is in no way omnipotent.
You can buy propoganda or you can look behind the vail and see the silly men pulling the levers. Just understand that those silly men don't like being pointed out and without the 2nd Ammendment many would turn from silly to murderous.
As for americans not standing up to goverment violence lets take a look at this.
1830' trail of tear, the natives did not have any guns
Post civil war south - blacks had a very hard time getting guns
Japaneses interment durring WW2- again the japaneses didn't have guns.
Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Routeenly got jailed before he was granted a concealed carry licence.
Are you seeing a pattern?
Who did have guns? WW2 vets in 1946 when they had to seige a jail in Tennesse to extract the corrupt local mayor and the towns police so the election could be counted properly.
The Bundy Ranch when the BLM tried to seize the ranch and cattle.
Hundreds of thousands of people every year warding off home invaders.
@cipher42 You're assuming the US military, which is composed of the citizenry, would listen to such orders from the "government". The fact is, it wouldn't. that very "overfunded" military would turn Praetorian Guard and shoot up DC themselves if the Feds ordered them to attack targets in the U. S. Because such orders would be blatantly illegal.
@taleswapper what, the "government" and "overfunded" quotes? Sure, I said that. But I'm operating off the premise (which he set) that the people would need to defend themselves against the military, which of course requires that the military is against the people.
@cipher42 "But I'm operating off the premise (which he set) that the people would need to defend themselves against the military, which of course requires that the military is against the people."
No, he set the condition that the people were acting against the government, not the military.
@taleswapper if the people require guns to stand against the governnent, then the government obviously has a military force for the people to stand against. Or else the military could handle the overthrow and there is no need for a right to bear arms.
@cipher42 BZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing. Actually, most popular uprisings are against the police, not the military. And in this country, the cops are usually UNDER funded and over worked.
@taleswapper but if cops are underfunded and the military is overfunded, and if the military would fight for the people and the cops would fight against them, there is again no need for the populous as a whole to own guns.
@cipher42 *facepalms* The military is PART of the people, and the reason they're effective is because they owned guns when they WEREN'T in the military, but were non-military civilians. Quit trying to separate them.
@taleswapper again, the military is overfunded as shit, and part of that goes toward training. There is absolutely no need for civilians to have weapns training prior to entering the military- thus why the military recruits even in high schools where there's no fucking chance any of the kids own guns.
@cipher42 My nieces, for example, are trained hunters, and crack shots, and have been since long before they were out of high school. They owned their own rifles. Your argument is false to fact.
@taleswapper Yikes. Regardless, your point about the military being the people has yet to be proved. Again, you just claimed the SCOTUS backs you on this. Prove it.
@cipher42 No. you're just trolling, and I have no need to feed you. If your understand of both US history and the military is so poor that you need something dso basic "proven" to you, then you have no business in the discussion in the first place.
@taleswapper Okay, so you really just can't support your argument at this point. If your views are so right and good and true, why do you try and wiggle out of actually having to prove them so? Should be easy, if your views are so obviously right as you seem to think they are.
@cipher42 Because your request for "proof" is a red herring, and I'm not going to indulge you. When you come up with a reasonable request for information, i'll provide it. I have no use for trolls.
@taleswapper my request for proof is in line with logical reasoning. What, are you saying we should just trust whatever people say without checking their sources? Well, I suppose that explains why you have the views you do.
@taleswapper so I actually googled the case I mentioned, and turns out not onky was I right, but that actually pretty solidly contradics the argument you're making.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, "
@cipher42 Yup. You proved I was right. Told you you could do your own homework. You did notice the words "unconnected with the militia", right? you don't need to actually be in the militia to own a gun; it's a right EVERYONE has.
@taleswapper unconnected means that the basis for the right is not to do with the mililita clause. That is in no way the argument you were making- you were saying everyone has the right to bear arms because everyone is the militia.
The constitution and bill of rights is supposed to stand the test of time, not change with the times. Also ARs don't fire 600+RPM, only the M16/M4 platforms. I don't even think with bump stocks they reach that high of a Cyclic Rate of Fire.
Right, this is gonna make me about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit, but you don't need guns in this day and age. You're not fighting any wars in the US and there's no-one out to kill you just for settling in their territory.
@gotc147 By the clear language of the amendment the 2nd amendment is clearly protecting the right to own guns for the militia, not for "everyone". This whole nonsense that everyone has a constitutional right to own a gun personally is just bullshit.
@Soteris "This whole nonsense that everyone has a constitutional right to own a gun personally is just bullshit." Well, SCOTUS clearly disagrees with you. What are your credentials, again?
@taleswapper You mean the current SCOTUS. I mean this interpretation is only from 2008 you know and there has been plenty of SCOTUS before that with different opinions.
@taleswapper Oh please. Do you really think there won't be any ramification of having the Supreme court judges be appointed by the president, who in turn wants the supreme court to vote along party lines?
Well you apparently don't know how to read if you think the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia. The Heller ruling had a reading lesson in it to help people understand it. I'd tell you to take a look but like I said, you don't know how to read.
@gotc147 Yeah right. As if you know anything about the scholarly debate about the 2nd amendment. Also what you just said its factually incorrect like for example: U. S. v. Cruikshank
The Cruikshank ruling said that the 2nd Amendment is a natural right, not something given by government and is not dependant on the Constitution for its existence.
Strike one. Let me guess your next example is the 1939 Miller ruling?
@gotc147 U. S. v. Cruikshank said that the 2nd amendment did not give any 2nd amendment rights to people and was only there to prevent the federal government for encroaching on people. This means that they said the 2nd amendment did not give anyone a constitutional right and it also did not apply to the state or individuals. This also means that the state does not have to recognize the 2nd amendment either and can crack down as hard as they want as long as congress is not involved.
SMH well like I said dude, you don't know how to read. You basically said what I said you just came to a completely different, and illogical conclusion.
You desperately need to take some reading comprehension classes.
No, you read the ruling and misunderstood it to mean something different from what it means.
If you were correct in your analyzation, then the 1939 Miller ruling would have gone much differently, especially since nobody was there to argue on Miller's behalf.
@gotc147 SCOTUS: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government"
"This is not alright granted by the Constitution": correct, it is granted by all means creator.
"Neither is it in any way dependant on that instrument for it's existence": correct, the Constitution is a legal barrier to legal policy, if the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed, the right to bear arms would still exist because it is granted by man's creator, not the government.
"It shall not he infringed by Congress": correct, because Congress is prohibited from infringing on gun rights under the 2nd Amendment.
"No other effect than to rest3ict the national government": correct, for the same reason as the previous line.
None of that says possession of firearms is only permitted to citizens who are part of a militia.
How do you read the line "has no other effect than to restrict the national government" and get the idea that the national government can ban guns to anybody not in the militia?
@gotc147 If you dont remember this was all because you said that no SCOTUS had ruled against the current ruling, which if we remove all the bullshit you just spewed out this one definitely goes against.
How do you read "has no other effect than to restrict the national government" and believe that statement means it gives the national government authority to implement restrictions?
@gotc147 Never said it did. It does however give the states that authority. Again though I only mentioned that case because you said there was no SCOTUS that contradicted the current interpretation.
Are we not talking about federal legislation and is Washington DC not a federally controlled jurisdiction?
And you mentioned that case because you thought it contradicted the Heller ruling from 2008, it doesn't. Cruickshank said that the 2nd Amendment is a natural right that exists whether the text of the Amendment is in the Constitution or not, and that the federal government cannot restrict it. It said absolutely nothing of whether it was an individual right or a collective right connected to militia service.
The only part of Cruickshank that has been overruled is the holding that the bill of rights does not apply to the states, but that is due to a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, not the 2nd and that reinterpretation was in 1937 with the De Jonge vs Oregon ruling, not in 2008 with the DC vs Heller ruling or even 2010 with the McDonald vs Chicago ruling.
@gotc147 Saying that owning guns is a natural right and saying that the 2nd amendment gives people a constitutional right to own guns is not even remotely the same thing.
To start with U. S. v. Cruikshank only focuses on the federal government and says nothing about individual rights or militias, which by extension means its completely 100% contrary to the 2008 Heller ruling. There is not a single thing that they have in common except that it prevents the federal government.
Where as they said the right to own a gun is natural, Heller said its an individual right granted by the constitution. Not he same... not even remotely the same..
Oh my god dude... Have you never read the Declaration of Independence? "That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
All men posses the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights simply by existing. Free speech, right to bear arms, due process, search and seizure... These are not given by governments, they are given by God (or whoever you believe your creator to be) and having them is not dependent on the existence of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You could repeal the 2nd Amendment, but that doesn't take away anybody's natural, god-given right to keep and bear arms.
THAT is what Cruickshank said.
The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, 3rd, 4th and the rest, "give" nothing, they ENSHRINE.
@gotc147 Well first of all the declaration of independence is not a legal document and as such does not have any effect on the 2nd amendment. Also the Declaration of Independence makes the declaration that governments are created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods/creators.
Also again, appealing to a natural order of things and interpreting the constitution is completely different. You can argue that the results are the same but that is not because they had the same definition of the 2nd amendment but because one believed in something else which gave a similar result independently from the 2nd amendment.
@gotc147 The declaration of independence is simply a statement made by congress that they think voiced the minds of its citizens. It does not have any legal properties. If you dont even know this then I dont know where to start with you.
Of course it had legal properties, you dolt. Itr dissolved the relationship between the colonies and the Crown. I'd say that is a legal effect, don't you?
@taleswapper Actually it does. For example the declaration of independence is only ever brought up in court as support for other legal documents but never as if it has any legal power in and of itself.
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U. S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court stated:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
there are more than a hundred example it being cited in SCOTUS cases alone.
@taleswapper don't bother, this guy said the Declaration of Independence was an announcement by Congress, even though Congress didn't exist when the Declaration was written.
@taleswapper Again, that is just reading a legal document with the "spirit" of the declaration of independence. Its not because the declaration of independence has any legal merit in and of itself.
I know this may annoy people I don't care I wouldn't mind looser gun laws in the UK but if it would cost the lives of children then I wouldn't care children are our only hope they should not have to be afraid of being killed just going to school
Right, so the US constitution is also only applicable to manually operated mechanical printing presses and ink and paper, not digital communications I suppose?
Why does interpreting the rights granted by a particular amendment as extending to a specific type of modern technology in a specific context mean that the same must be true of all amendments for all modern technologies? You've got yourself a false equivalency there buddy.
It's not outdated, but it also doesn't specify the types of arms citizens can bear. Rifles? SAWs? RPGs? ICBMs? I'm a gun owner, but I don't like assault weapons being the hands of civilians.
Assault weapons are FULL AUTO idiot. Take a gun class before spewing MEDIA LIES. The second amendment gives CITIZENS the power to overthrow our government!
No more than you really need a car, but liberty is not about need, now is it? Do you really need a TV? A computer? Pizza? Soda? Your question is utterly stupid.
And yet people kill one another ALL THE TIME, with cars. Convenient how you left that part of my argument out so you could suit your own. Do you need a knife then? Fertilizer? Draino? Baseball bats? People kill one another with those too. You also left out the part about liberty, because you and I both know liberty isn't about need. YOUR argument is the ridiculous one, especially since you had to edit mine in order to even make yours possible.
But can you kill a person with a knife when you're standing 100 meters away from them? When I got my licence I had to sit a test just so I could learn to drive and then I set a driving test. My car has to be registered, licensed, insured and road worthy. I can loose my licence if I do the wrong thing.
@Goodwife You can steal a car just like you can steal a gun. Someone killed 71 people with a stolen semi-truck in France in less than two minutes. You don't need to be able to kill someone from 100 yards away. Do you need a semi-truck? He didn't have to get that truck registered. He didn't have to get a license. He didn't have to get an inspection or anything of the sort. He stole it and ran down dozens of people at a time. Your laws, regulations, and restrictions mean NOTHING to criminals. It doesn't matter how many you keep slapping on the books.
I do not see making guns illegal and trying to take them away as a solution. I believe a lot of people will fight back. On top of that every home (house, apartment, trailer, townhouse, condominium etc) would have to be searched. Every shed and garage would have to be searched. Every industrial and commercial building would have to be searched. Every vehicle would have to be searched. Every boat, ship, yacht, personal watercraft would have to be searched. Every plane, helicopter, chopper, jet would have to be searched. Treehouses and forts would have to be searched. The land would have to be searched. Water would have to be searched. People would have to be searched. Anything else I may have forgotten would need to be searched. Lets say every gun was confiscated there still will be things that can be used as weapons. Examples: knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, crowbars, axes, hachets, hammers, chainsaws, shovels, lighters, etc. Still can kill people or at least injure them but not
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
50Opinion
It depends how you interpret it. If you interpret the second amendment as being specifically about the militia, then not really.
It's been unclear for a long time what exactly the second amendment meant, and there's been a judicial flip in the past 30 years in the U. S.
culturally, the 'militia is merely an example' view has swung into dominance.
Americans are gun obsessed. The only chance of a real change on this issue is if far, far more black americans start legally open carrying.
The 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear and the Supreme Court has never suggested that it only applies to militia members, quite the opposite actually.
There was never a point in history when the 2nd Amendment was considered to only be a part of the militia, that's left wing revisionist history. If you don't believe me pull up the court rulings that say different.
If you really think black Americans open carrying is going to change the mind of conservatives, then you're crazy.
@gotc147 On the last point: that's exactly why when Reagan was governor they changed the laws in California.
On the first: It was considered a collective right or individual right deriving from the collective right as opposed to a purely individual right by most circuit courts prior to 2001.
In any case, its your country, just don't bring them into ours.
Name the case prior to 2001 that you're speaking of.
Are people really that paranoid about the government?
Sad hey
Yeah, I'd say in a functioning democracy people shouldn't have to be afraid of their government. But then again I don't know the situation in the US that well
Two words Donald Trump, I think I'd be scared too.
I didn't want to get all political about this, but they felt the same under the previous presidents, so it can't be just his fault.
Yep same crap different presidents.
Unfortunately yeah
If you're not then you're not very knowledgeable of history.
Aside from natural causes, government kills more people than anything else.
Yeah because the government is the greatest power in a nation, it only makes sense that the government has the highest body count
No. I'm sick of this gun debate B. S. Let's focus taking all guns out of the criminals hands and leave law abiding citizens the hell alone with their guns inculding assault rifles.
It's the criminals that are causing crimes and murder not the good citizens, so why keep harassing them about their damn guns?
And how do you relieve a criminal of his gun? Laws. What's making it difficult is that it's commonplace to own multiple guns in America. If you wanted to take all apples away from criminals, how would you locate said criminals? Everyone has apples, but some are apparently going to be illegal apples at some point. It's like finding a very particular needle in a stack of needles.
No wonder there still isn't any proper legislation.
To elaborate: you need laws to make it possible to take said guns away from said criminals. Otherwise it's theft, even if the police does it. There has to be some ground on which law enforcement can determine that someone is not allowed a gun and a criminal record is not the best way seeing as it comes after the crime.
People are not born criminal or law-abiding. The good guys-bad guys trope is just another version of identity politics in which the world is divided neatly into good and evil people. That is not how the world works. You can talk about good and evil actions, but that is about it. And that is my problem with the idea of the "responsible gun owner". Sure he's responsible - until the day he has a mental breakdown and murders his family. Or colleagues. Or classmates.
Not really. You live in a country that has the least restrictions, that's how it should be. I hate seeing all of these new laws that are practically restricting our freedom, not even just the US but here in the UK. Just look at any legislation in any country in the west that is being passed and you'll see what I mean.
The time to do something about guns in the US is far too late, guns are everywhere. The only thing that can be done is restrictions.
I live in Australia.
We have strict gun laws.
That would mean freedom of speech is limited to quill and parchment and shouting distance and freedom of the press is limited to old school printing presses.
THINK about what you're going to say before you say it.
Like what @madhatters54 said
Not outdated just too liberally used.
Handguns and shotguns for self defense fine, rifles for hunting and recreation, cool
(If you tell me an AR 15 is a rifle shut up, it uses an intermediate round in its most basic form. If the military doesn't classify that as a rifle round then why are you.)
What's not cool are guns like the AR 15 that aren't good at self defense or hunting but are great for killing a whole bunch of unarmed people
Also the standaed infantry rifle of the Austrian army was a 20 shot air rifle that had as much power as a.45
One was carried by Lewis and clark
Actually, the AR-15 is an excellent hunting AND home-defense weapon, falling as it does into the category of "scout carbine". Great saddle gun, too. Quite popular for everything from raccoon to deer. I might not hunt elk, or bear with it, but it's good for anything smaller, and MUCH easier to handle in the woods and high brush than, say, a shotgun or a long rifle. As for self-defense, it's and it's equivalents are the weapon of choice for the line soldier and the street cop. What makes you say it isn't?
@taleswapper an excellent hunting rifle?
Coyotes sure, rabbits? Yeah, anythijg larger and I wouldn't trust a 5.56 to do it quickly enough to be humane.
As for why a shotgun?
Let me, put it this way, in my town Billerica Massachusetts which is rated as one if the safest in the country.
Had a black bear jusr walk down a street where people were having a pool party. If the bear had attacked?
A 5.56 would have taken a while, it would have died sure, but it would have also have had time to kill a couple of kids.
A 12 gauge loaded with buckshot or slugs?
The bear would be dead before anyone got seriously hurt.
A 5.56 round is not full rifle sized, its intermediete larger than a pistol, smaller than a rifle.
As for why handguns are better for everyday carry?
Well that's obvious, its easier to carry a.38 or.45 all day than slug a full sized AR around.
As for soldiers?
Men are easy to put down.
The advantages are having a 30 round mag of fmj gives a soldier the range they need
@taleswapper continued,
However its also worth noting that when the marine corps knows they have to do house clearing and such, they prefer that at least one marine, usually on point carries a shotgun, because even 150 years after the invention of the shotgun shell, there is still nothing better for close quarters than a shotgun.
@taleswapper and as foe police officers, it depends on where you are some often also keep a shotgun under the dash
reckon I'm just a better shot, then; I've never had an issue with taking down deer with it.
@taleswapper you may be good, but I'd rather be sure to get the job done, I wouldn't trust anythijg less than a full rifle round to put them down.
Anything larger than a whitetail, I would prefer something like a.45-70
So, we've established that the AR15 IS an effective hunting tool for anything smaller than whitetail, and larger than a squirrel. That Both the military and the police find the round (5.56 NATO) useful a self-defense tool. So that puts paid to the argument that you originally made, that it was neither.
@taleswapper except it isn't
There are a dozens different weapons that do it better and the police and military don't use it as a self defense weapon, they use it as an offensive weapon, a person defending their home is never going to need to put a man down 100 yards away
Well, "better" is a subjective evaluation; it has no metric. And all firearm use is offensive, it's not a shield. But you can use an offensive weapon in a defensive manner. It's quite common. You "defend" yourself by making the other guy incapable or unwilling to continue.
@taleswapper there is a difference, engaging insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan is an offensive.
Protecting your home amd family is home defense
Exactly. but the weapon still works for both situations.
No, the 2ns amendment has always been abouy citizens protecting themselves from the goverment. You think 900 dead from rifles is bad? Try 1,500 a day from an out of control government.
There's literally no chance in hell the citizens of the US could stand against the US government considering how overfunded it is. Unless you allow citizens access to all sorts of super high tech, super dangerous military technology (and tbh not even then), which I would hope you recognize as the idiocy it is.
@cipher42 illiterate 17 years olds hiding in caves amd riding donkeys seem to be doing a damn good job standing against the military so your assertion is laughably false.
Sources? Because I rather suspect the situation your referring to has some rather significant differences from the hypothetical situation we're discussing. I doubt what is going on in your example is an active overthrow of a government, which is what were talking about here. Holding a small area/force against foreign troops is pretty motherfucking different from actively trying to seize control of an area from a group native to that territory.
Do you even know what you are talkong about? You want me to sour e the War in Afghanistan? Really?
Yes, I do. Can you do it or not? Explain why the circunstances there are comparable to what we're talking about here.
I said the 2nd amendment is the citizen's protection against an out of controle goverment.
You said that the citizens could not stand up the U. S. military.
I said thats laughable becuase the insergents in Afganistan are doing just that in smaller numbers and not anywhere nearly as well armed as the American public.
So the reasons for creating the 2nd Amendment was valid in 1791, its valid today and for as long as we are governed by men not angles the 2nd ammendment will always be valid.
And as I explained, the folks in Afghanistan are defending a territory where they're on their home turf, not attacking/trying to gain control over an area already controlled by a native force. Those are completely different forms of warfare. Plus, there's the fact of how cyberwarfare would play in. In the US, the US government has far more tools for surveilling and otherwise controlling the public already in place than exist in Afghanistan.
You think American citizens wouldn't be defending their home territory?
Also survalience is a large complex structure that takes a lot of smart and hard working people to maintain. It wouldn't take but a small percentage of the country to break that.
One fact about the American Revolution people dont understand is only 30% of the country wanted independence. Among those that 30% only 10% lifted a finger to do anything. Among the 10% less than 2% were invloved enough to make any difference. This is proven out over and over again with uprisings around the world, it really does not take much, usually only 2% with access to means of fighting back against tyranny.
However as long as the 2nd ammendment is upheld with orginal intent, thats a road we will never have to travel down. So yes I will take the school shooting to save the country from ever having death camps.
I think such defense is useless. What has to happen to stop government abuse is an overthrow of the government, for which you need to ATTACK, not judt defend.
Ya I think you underestimate the capacity of our surveillance. Recall that the US military is astoundingly overfunded and absolutely has the resources for this shit. They managed to surveill people back in the 50s during the red scare pretty fucking effectively (an era of crazy government abuses and a distinct lack of armed resistance from the people) I think nowadays with all the advances in tech theyve made it'd be pretty damn easy for them to keep track of folks.
Also, fucking hilarious how you think the citizens of the US (which, as I noted have something of a history of NOT standing up against horrible government abuses) could overthrow the government which has the most overfunded military in the world and plenty of practice effectively fighting and surveilling other countries.
Cipher42 do you think our telecommunication systems are magic? Seriously do you think they are magic? These systems are unimaginably complex with endless weak points. I have several family members who maintain those systems and if any one of them screw up their job then huge sections of the system goes down. It wouldn't take a 2% rebellion from telecom workers to completely crash the system, more like 0.001%
Next up are you in a military family? Because I am. I have lived on army bases, I know that over funded military is 50% medical expenses. I also know the kids that are put at the controls of our military. Its the best most powerful military machine ever created but it is in no way omnipotent.
You can buy propoganda or you can look behind the vail and see the silly men pulling the levers. Just understand that those silly men don't like being pointed out and without the 2nd Ammendment many would turn from silly to murderous.
As for americans not standing up to goverment violence lets take a look at this.
1830' trail of tear, the natives did not have any guns
Post civil war south - blacks had a very hard time getting guns
Japaneses interment durring WW2- again the japaneses didn't have guns.
Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Routeenly got jailed before he was granted a concealed carry licence.
Are you seeing a pattern?
Who did have guns? WW2 vets in 1946 when they had to seige a jail in Tennesse to extract the corrupt local mayor and the towns police so the election could be counted properly.
The Bundy Ranch when the BLM tried to seize the ranch and cattle.
Hundreds of thousands of people every year warding off home invaders.
Again are you seeing a pattern?
@cipher42 You're assuming the US military, which is composed of the citizenry, would listen to such orders from the "government". The fact is, it wouldn't. that very "overfunded" military would turn Praetorian Guard and shoot up DC themselves if the Feds ordered them to attack targets in the U. S. Because such orders would be blatantly illegal.
@taleswapper No, I'm not assuming that, I'm assuming that he's assuming it. Which he is. So take it up with him, not me.
Cipher42 my statements have been very simple, maybe its time you take them at face value and stop assuming things.
@cipher42 Was that noty you I quoted? My bad, then. :)
@taleswapper what, the "government" and "overfunded" quotes? Sure, I said that. But I'm operating off the premise (which he set) that the people would need to defend themselves against the military, which of course requires that the military is against the people.
@cipher42 "But I'm operating off the premise (which he set) that the people would need to defend themselves against the military, which of course requires that the military is against the people."
No, he set the condition that the people were acting against the government, not the military.
@taleswapper if the people require guns to stand against the governnent, then the government obviously has a military force for the people to stand against. Or else the military could handle the overthrow and there is no need for a right to bear arms.
@cipher42 BZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing. Actually, most popular uprisings are against the police, not the military. And in this country, the cops are usually UNDER funded and over worked.
@taleswapper but if cops are underfunded and the military is overfunded, and if the military would fight for the people and the cops would fight against them, there is again no need for the populous as a whole to own guns.
@cipher42 *facepalms* The military is PART of the people, and the reason they're effective is because they owned guns when they WEREN'T in the military, but were non-military civilians. Quit trying to separate them.
@taleswapper again, the military is overfunded as shit, and part of that goes toward training. There is absolutely no need for civilians to have weapns training prior to entering the military- thus why the military recruits even in high schools where there's no fucking chance any of the kids own guns.
@cipher42 My nieces, for example, are trained hunters, and crack shots, and have been since long before they were out of high school. They owned their own rifles. Your argument is false to fact.
@taleswapper oh holy shit the US really does allow gun ownership under 18. Wow and I thought I couldn't have any less faith in the US's gun laws.
@cipher42 Luckily, you're not required to. Cheers!
@taleswapper Yikes. Regardless, your point about the military being the people has yet to be proved. Again, you just claimed the SCOTUS backs you on this. Prove it.
@cipher42 No. you're just trolling, and I have no need to feed you. If your understand of both US history and the military is so poor that you need something dso basic "proven" to you, then you have no business in the discussion in the first place.
@taleswapper Okay, so you really just can't support your argument at this point. If your views are so right and good and true, why do you try and wiggle out of actually having to prove them so? Should be easy, if your views are so obviously right as you seem to think they are.
@cipher42 Because your request for "proof" is a red herring, and I'm not going to indulge you. When you come up with a reasonable request for information, i'll provide it. I have no use for trolls.
@taleswapper my request for proof is in line with logical reasoning. What, are you saying we should just trust whatever people say without checking their sources? Well, I suppose that explains why you have the views you do.
@taleswapper so I actually googled the case I mentioned, and turns out not onky was I right, but that actually pretty solidly contradics the argument you're making.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, "
en.m.wikipedia.org/.../...ct_of_Columbia_v._Heller
And all it took me was a ten second Google search. Turns out its pretty easy to provide proof of your argument when you're right.
@cipher42 Yup. You proved I was right. Told you you could do your own homework. You did notice the words "unconnected with the militia", right? you don't need to actually be in the militia to own a gun; it's a right EVERYONE has.
@taleswapper unconnected means that the basis for the right is not to do with the mililita clause. That is in no way the argument you were making- you were saying everyone has the right to bear arms because everyone is the militia.
@cipher42 They said the same thing about the colonists "Theres no way you can win against an army of 4 million" Yet they whooped the British asses
Totally agree. I like the japanese system of gun ownership myself
The constitution and bill of rights is supposed to stand the test of time, not change with the times. Also ARs don't fire 600+RPM, only the M16/M4 platforms. I don't even think with bump stocks they reach that high of a Cyclic Rate of Fire.
Right, this is gonna make me about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit, but you don't need guns in this day and age. You're not fighting any wars in the US and there's no-one out to kill you just for settling in their territory.
Simples...
Well to start with it was never intended to be used like it is today. It was not a "free card" for anyone to have a gun.
Yes it is.
If you're looking for an amendment to keep people from having guns, check out the 5th.
@gotc147 By the clear language of the amendment the 2nd amendment is clearly protecting the right to own guns for the militia, not for "everyone". This whole nonsense that everyone has a constitutional right to own a gun personally is just bullshit.
@Soteris "This whole nonsense that everyone has a constitutional right to own a gun personally is just bullshit." Well, SCOTUS clearly disagrees with you. What are your credentials, again?
@taleswapper You mean the current SCOTUS. I mean this interpretation is only from 2008 you know and there has been plenty of SCOTUS before that with different opinions.
SCOTUS rarely overturns itself. And it wasn't an issue, really, before 1960s. So no, I mean any of them.
@taleswapper Oh please. SCOTUS is mostly politically motivated and overturn eachother frequently. Also 1960 was a far cry from 2008.
Well, now I know you're just blowing smoke, @Solens...
@taleswapper Oh please. Do you really think there won't be any ramification of having the Supreme court judges be appointed by the president, who in turn wants the supreme court to vote along party lines?
Well you apparently don't know how to read if you think the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia. The Heller ruling had a reading lesson in it to help people understand it. I'd tell you to take a look but like I said, you don't know how to read.
Oh, and the Supreme Court has never in history ruled different on the 2nd Amendment from how they did in 2008, not once.
@gotc147 Yeah right. As if you know anything about the scholarly debate about the 2nd amendment. Also what you just said its factually incorrect like for example:
U. S. v. Cruikshank
The Cruikshank ruling said that the 2nd Amendment is a natural right, not something given by government and is not dependant on the Constitution for its existence.
Strike one. Let me guess your next example is the 1939 Miller ruling?
@gotc147
U. S. v. Cruikshank said that the 2nd amendment did not give any 2nd amendment rights to people and was only there to prevent the federal government for encroaching on people. This means that they said the 2nd amendment did not give anyone a constitutional right and it also did not apply to the state or individuals. This also means that the state does not have to recognize the 2nd amendment either and can crack down as hard as they want as long as congress is not involved.
SMH well like I said dude, you don't know how to read. You basically said what I said you just came to a completely different, and illogical conclusion.
You desperately need to take some reading comprehension classes.
@gotc147 I came to the same conclusion they did. I dont know where you ended up though.
No, you read the ruling and misunderstood it to mean something different from what it means.
If you were correct in your analyzation, then the 1939 Miller ruling would have gone much differently, especially since nobody was there to argue on Miller's behalf.
@gotc147
SCOTUS:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government"
Tell me more.
"This is not alright granted by the Constitution": correct, it is granted by all means creator.
"Neither is it in any way dependant on that instrument for it's existence": correct, the Constitution is a legal barrier to legal policy, if the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed, the right to bear arms would still exist because it is granted by man's creator, not the government.
"It shall not he infringed by Congress": correct, because Congress is prohibited from infringing on gun rights under the 2nd Amendment.
"No other effect than to rest3ict the national government": correct, for the same reason as the previous line.
None of that says possession of firearms is only permitted to citizens who are part of a militia.
How do you read the line "has no other effect than to restrict the national government" and get the idea that the national government can ban guns to anybody not in the militia?
@gotc147 If you dont remember this was all because you said that no SCOTUS had ruled against the current ruling, which if we remove all the bullshit you just spewed out this one definitely goes against.
You didn't answer my question.
How do you read "has no other effect than to restrict the national government" and believe that statement means it gives the national government authority to implement restrictions?
@gotc147 Never said it did. It does however give the states that authority. Again though I only mentioned that case because you said there was no SCOTUS that contradicted the current interpretation.
Are we not talking about federal legislation and is Washington DC not a federally controlled jurisdiction?
And you mentioned that case because you thought it contradicted the Heller ruling from 2008, it doesn't. Cruickshank said that the 2nd Amendment is a natural right that exists whether the text of the Amendment is in the Constitution or not, and that the federal government cannot restrict it. It said absolutely nothing of whether it was an individual right or a collective right connected to militia service.
The only part of Cruickshank that has been overruled is the holding that the bill of rights does not apply to the states, but that is due to a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, not the 2nd and that reinterpretation was in 1937 with the De Jonge vs Oregon ruling, not in 2008 with the DC vs Heller ruling or even 2010 with the McDonald vs Chicago ruling.
Heller overturned/reinterpreted nothing.
@gotc147 Saying that owning guns is a natural right and saying that the 2nd amendment gives people a constitutional right to own guns is not even remotely the same thing.
To start with U. S. v. Cruikshank only focuses on the federal government and says nothing about individual rights or militias, which by extension means its completely 100% contrary to the 2008 Heller ruling. There is not a single thing that they have in common except that it prevents the federal government.
Where as they said the right to own a gun is natural, Heller said its an individual right granted by the constitution. Not he same... not even remotely the same..
Oh my god dude... Have you never read the Declaration of Independence? "That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
All men posses the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights simply by existing. Free speech, right to bear arms, due process, search and seizure... These are not given by governments, they are given by God (or whoever you believe your creator to be) and having them is not dependent on the existence of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You could repeal the 2nd Amendment, but that doesn't take away anybody's natural, god-given right to keep and bear arms.
THAT is what Cruickshank said.
The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, 3rd, 4th and the rest, "give" nothing, they ENSHRINE.
@gotc147 Well first of all the declaration of independence is not a legal document and as such does not have any effect on the 2nd amendment. Also the Declaration of Independence makes the declaration that governments are created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods/creators.
Also again, appealing to a natural order of things and interpreting the constitution is completely different. You can argue that the results are the same but that is not because they had the same definition of the 2nd amendment but because one believed in something else which gave a similar result independently from the 2nd amendment.
"The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document" yeah, we had a war with England over what exactly then?
What planet do you live on? It's like you don't even live in the same reality as everybody else.
Ah, you're European... That explains a lot. Sorry, I no longer have time to talk about your Lord and savior, Government.
@gotc147 The declaration of independence is simply a statement made by congress that they think voiced the minds of its citizens. It does not have any legal properties. If you dont even know this then I dont know where to start with you.
Of course it had legal properties, you dolt. Itr dissolved the relationship between the colonies and the Crown. I'd say that is a legal effect, don't you?
@taleswapper Not really. It is simply a glorified announcement.
So is a summons, but that doesn't mean it's not a legal document.
@taleswapper Actually it does. For example the declaration of independence is only ever brought up in court as support for other legal documents but never as if it has any legal power in and of itself.
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U. S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court stated:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
there are more than a hundred example it being cited in SCOTUS cases alone.
@taleswapper don't bother, this guy said the Declaration of Independence was an announcement by Congress, even though Congress didn't exist when the Declaration was written.
@gotc147 No worries; I'm here to educate others, not him. He's a lost cause...
@taleswapper Again, that is just reading a legal document with the "spirit" of the declaration of independence. Its not because the declaration of independence has any legal merit in and of itself.
@gotc147 also for you. Enjoy your evenings reading material:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Continental_Congress
I know this may annoy people I don't care I wouldn't mind looser gun laws in the UK but if it would cost the lives of children then I wouldn't care children are our only hope they should not have to be afraid of being killed just going to school
Right, so the US constitution is also only applicable to manually operated mechanical printing presses and ink and paper, not digital communications I suppose?
Why does interpreting the rights granted by a particular amendment as extending to a specific type of modern technology in a specific context mean that the same must be true of all amendments for all modern technologies? You've got yourself a false equivalency there buddy.
But even that has changed the has to keep up with technology
It's not outdated, but it also doesn't specify the types of arms citizens can bear. Rifles? SAWs? RPGs? ICBMs? I'm a gun owner, but I don't like assault weapons being the hands of civilians.
What defines an assault weapon?
@Celtero Well, it was about 1943, and this German guy... nah, go look it up for yourself.
Assault weapons are FULL AUTO idiot. Take a gun class before spewing MEDIA LIES. The second amendment gives CITIZENS the power to overthrow our government!
My question is: do you really need a gun?
Not at all but I'm in Australia so we have different laws.
What? I love your little heaven bubble you have in your mind while living in this earth.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy What do you mean?
No more than you really need a car, but liberty is not about need, now is it? Do you really need a TV? A computer? Pizza? Soda? Your question is utterly stupid.
Do you usually kill people beating them with a tv? A computer? Pizza or soda? Your arguments are ridicolous.
And yet people kill one another ALL THE TIME, with cars. Convenient how you left that part of my argument out so you could suit your own. Do you need a knife then? Fertilizer? Draino? Baseball bats? People kill one another with those too. You also left out the part about liberty, because you and I both know liberty isn't about need. YOUR argument is the ridiculous one, especially since you had to edit mine in order to even make yours possible.
But can you kill a person with a knife when you're standing 100 meters away from them?
When I got my licence I had to sit a test just so I could learn to drive and then I set a driving test. My car has to be registered, licensed, insured and road worthy. I can loose my licence if I do the wrong thing.
He doesn't even deserve an explanation
@Goodwife You can steal a car just like you can steal a gun. Someone killed 71 people with a stolen semi-truck in France in less than two minutes. You don't need to be able to kill someone from 100 yards away. Do you need a semi-truck? He didn't have to get that truck registered. He didn't have to get a license. He didn't have to get an inspection or anything of the sort. He stole it and ran down dozens of people at a time. Your laws, regulations, and restrictions mean NOTHING to criminals. It doesn't matter how many you keep slapping on the books.
Everyone needs to read the 2nd amendment and just not believe what they are total on fake news networks.
Not really. Your culture is based on shooting people. How can you possibly make gun control work?
Is this a real question? Anyone with eyes and a brain knows the answer.
Well okay then
I do not see making guns illegal and trying to take them away as a solution. I believe a lot of people will fight back. On top of that every home (house, apartment, trailer, townhouse, condominium etc) would have to be searched. Every shed and garage would have to be searched. Every industrial and commercial building would have to be searched. Every vehicle would have to be searched. Every boat, ship, yacht, personal watercraft would have to be searched. Every plane, helicopter, chopper, jet would have to be searched. Treehouses and forts would have to be searched. The land would have to be searched. Water would have to be searched. People would have to be searched. Anything else I may have forgotten would need to be searched. Lets say every gun was confiscated there still will be things that can be used as weapons. Examples: knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, crowbars, axes, hachets, hammers, chainsaws, shovels, lighters, etc. Still can kill people or at least injure them but not
on as mass of a scale other than explosives and vehicles
I would have to say no. Because I believe they would have been intelligent enough. To believe that weapon technology would improve over the years.