This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
"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."
When was the last time that American citizens had to form a "Well regulated militia" from it's citizens "keeping and bearing arms"? Is there any conceivable argument for US citizens to continue an outdated right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia in 2017 as there may have been in 1791, when there are now Government funded Federal Defense Forces in existence for this very purpose, not to mention the National Guard?
Can an outdated Amendment to the Bill of Rights be rescinded if the Will is there?
When was the last time that American citizens had to form a "Well regulated militia" from it's citizens "keeping and bearing arms"? Is there any conceivable argument for US citizens to continue an outdated right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia in 2017 as there may have been in 1791, when there are now Government funded Federal Defense Forces in existence for this very purpose, not to mention the National Guard?
Can an outdated Amendment to the Bill of Rights be rescinded if the Will is there?
3
3
In reply to Trangia:
See the 18th amendment.
Edit: they are amendments to the constitution, not the bill of rights - that is the first 10 amendments collectively.
See the 18th amendment.
Edit: they are amendments to the constitution, not the bill of rights - that is the first 10 amendments collectively.
Post edited at 19:45
In reply to Philip:
Interesting, so it's possible!
You are right.
> See the 18th amendment.
Interesting, so it's possible!
> Edit: they are amendments to the constitution, not the bill of rights - that is the first 10 amendments collectively.
You are right.
In reply to Trangia:
We can chew over this as much as we like. There is no way Trump or the American people are going to give up their guns.
We can chew over this as much as we like. There is no way Trump or the American people are going to give up their guns.
7
In reply to Trangia:
It's the mistrust and fear of the federal government that convinces many Americans to own guns.
It's the mistrust and fear of the federal government that convinces many Americans to own guns.
2
In reply to Dave Perry:
True, nor would one rule work for all. If you live on a farm in rural USA with mountain lions, or bears, you'd probably want one. In downtown NY not needed. It is wierd when you go to places and they have a "no guns allowed" policy, like conference venues!
True, nor would one rule work for all. If you live on a farm in rural USA with mountain lions, or bears, you'd probably want one. In downtown NY not needed. It is wierd when you go to places and they have a "no guns allowed" policy, like conference venues!
1
In reply to Trangia:
The purpose of the Militia was to oppose an oppressive Government (hence the 'security of a Free State'). that oppressive government being us Brits...
That's why the gun nuts are still convinced the gubmint is headed their way, to wrench their guns from the cold, dead hands...
> when there are now Government funded Federal Defense Forces in existence for this very purpose, not to mention the National Guard?
The purpose of the Militia was to oppose an oppressive Government (hence the 'security of a Free State'). that oppressive government being us Brits...
That's why the gun nuts are still convinced the gubmint is headed their way, to wrench their guns from the cold, dead hands...
1
1
In reply to baron:
The NRA has been strangely silent regarding the latest attrocity . It hasn't condemned it, neither has it tried to excuse it.
The NRA has been strangely silent regarding the latest attrocity . It hasn't condemned it, neither has it tried to excuse it.
2
1
In reply to Philip:
Yeah, what with the 2nd Amendment banging on about the right to arm Bears.
If the Bears are armed, you sure as hell would want to be...
> If you live on a farm in rural USA with mountain lions, or bears
Yeah, what with the 2nd Amendment banging on about the right to arm Bears.
If the Bears are armed, you sure as hell would want to be...
9
1
In reply to Dave Perry:
Correct. All sorts of legal arguments have made regarding the interpretation of the wording. The one I like is that the right to bear arms is only contemplated in the context of membership of a well-regulated (ie officially recognised) militia, which in current terms must mean the military, national guard and probably the police.
Obviously no-one in the NRA, nor a sizeable number of congressmen and senators (not to mention at least half of the Supreme Court judges) are ever going to read it this way.
> We can chew over this as much as we like. There is no way Trump or the American people are going to give up their guns.
Correct. All sorts of legal arguments have made regarding the interpretation of the wording. The one I like is that the right to bear arms is only contemplated in the context of membership of a well-regulated (ie officially recognised) militia, which in current terms must mean the military, national guard and probably the police.
Obviously no-one in the NRA, nor a sizeable number of congressmen and senators (not to mention at least half of the Supreme Court judges) are ever going to read it this way.
1
In reply to Trangia:
Something like 1 in 4 gun owners are members of the NRA which gives it a fair amount of clout.
They - the NRA - have spouted some nonsense over the years and it would be interesting to see how they could put a positive spin on gun ownership with reference to the Las Vegas incident.
Something like 1 in 4 gun owners are members of the NRA which gives it a fair amount of clout.
They - the NRA - have spouted some nonsense over the years and it would be interesting to see how they could put a positive spin on gun ownership with reference to the Las Vegas incident.
2
1
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
There was a long piece (Washington post perhaps?) which someone linked to on my Facebook page which made a similar point. I think the author had been involved with the supreme court in the 70s in some way.
The other point that article made was that it's a comparatively recent development (post 70s?) That the second amendment is taken to restrict state regulation of forearms; prior to that the amendment was interpreted as a restriction on the federal government only with states having the right to regulate firearm ownership as they saw fit.
There was a long piece (Washington post perhaps?) which someone linked to on my Facebook page which made a similar point. I think the author had been involved with the supreme court in the 70s in some way.
The other point that article made was that it's a comparatively recent development (post 70s?) That the second amendment is taken to restrict state regulation of forearms; prior to that the amendment was interpreted as a restriction on the federal government only with states having the right to regulate firearm ownership as they saw fit.
In reply to baron:
But since only 40% ish of Americans own guns then that means 10% are telling the other 90% what to do. Surely the 90% have just as much financial clout.
But since only 40% ish of Americans own guns then that means 10% are telling the other 90% what to do. Surely the 90% have just as much financial clout.
1
In reply to CasWebb:
I think the financial side is important especially in the funding of political campaigns but there's also the social side.
In some states over 60% of households own a gun.
Most of these people aren't the swivel eyed loons that some like to portray them as.
Convincing these people to change their minds is not going to be easy/possible.
I think the financial side is important especially in the funding of political campaigns but there's also the social side.
In some states over 60% of households own a gun.
Most of these people aren't the swivel eyed loons that some like to portray them as.
Convincing these people to change their minds is not going to be easy/possible.
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
'The purpose of the Militia was to oppose an oppressive Government (hence the 'security of a Free State'). that oppressive government being us Brits...'
No, that isn't true, it was much more subtle than that. The point was that the founding fathers wanted to avoid the government having a monopoly of force, or having a standing army, which they could then use to oppress the citizenry. The point about the 'well armed militia' was that they would provide adequate protection against external threats without handing undue power to central government. And, in fact, that vision seems to have been implemented pretty well elsewhere - Switzerland has a 'well armed militia' without anything like the issues in the States (though I think there is a higher incidence of gun fatalities there than there is in the UK, whose gun control we should be rightly proud of.)
'The purpose of the Militia was to oppose an oppressive Government (hence the 'security of a Free State'). that oppressive government being us Brits...'
No, that isn't true, it was much more subtle than that. The point was that the founding fathers wanted to avoid the government having a monopoly of force, or having a standing army, which they could then use to oppress the citizenry. The point about the 'well armed militia' was that they would provide adequate protection against external threats without handing undue power to central government. And, in fact, that vision seems to have been implemented pretty well elsewhere - Switzerland has a 'well armed militia' without anything like the issues in the States (though I think there is a higher incidence of gun fatalities there than there is in the UK, whose gun control we should be rightly proud of.)
1
1
In reply to Trangia:
Second amendment says nowt about ammunition. An AR15 without a box of 5.56 is just a fancy stick.
Second amendment says nowt about ammunition. An AR15 without a box of 5.56 is just a fancy stick.
2
1
In reply to baron:
Not so easy, easy to reload empty cases if the primers etc are available, but making it to a standard for self loadng weapons from scratch?
I'm sure that the only possible (a remote one at that) answer is control of ammunition, something that even UK law recognises in the obsolete calibre sections of firearm law. You can buy a fully functioning non deactivated ww1 anti tank rifle in the UK with no FAC because the ammunition can't be found.
> They'll just make their own ammunition if they don't already.
Not so easy, easy to reload empty cases if the primers etc are available, but making it to a standard for self loadng weapons from scratch?
I'm sure that the only possible (a remote one at that) answer is control of ammunition, something that even UK law recognises in the obsolete calibre sections of firearm law. You can buy a fully functioning non deactivated ww1 anti tank rifle in the UK with no FAC because the ammunition can't be found.
Post edited at 21:46
1
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I suspect that even that isn't the real reason. From debates at the time, note that it was the Southern states that asked for this amendment. What did they actually want a militia for? It was for keeping down the slaves. It was routine in the Southern states for whites to form an armed militia, which would patrol and look for runaway slaves, and generally form a "presence" that would keep the blacks subdued.
They were worried that the Federal government would be dominated by the Northern states, less sympathetic to slavery, and for *that* reason they were worried that the federal government might try to have a monopoly on armed forces. Without all the Southern whites having guns there would be little to stop the slaves rising up. Hence the 2nd Amendment.
> The point was that the founding fathers wanted to avoid the government having a monopoly of force, or having a standing army, which they could then use to oppress the citizenry. The point about the 'well armed militia' was that they would provide adequate protection against external threats without handing undue power to central government.
I suspect that even that isn't the real reason. From debates at the time, note that it was the Southern states that asked for this amendment. What did they actually want a militia for? It was for keeping down the slaves. It was routine in the Southern states for whites to form an armed militia, which would patrol and look for runaway slaves, and generally form a "presence" that would keep the blacks subdued.
They were worried that the Federal government would be dominated by the Northern states, less sympathetic to slavery, and for *that* reason they were worried that the federal government might try to have a monopoly on armed forces. Without all the Southern whites having guns there would be little to stop the slaves rising up. Hence the 2nd Amendment.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
And so we're into the 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' interpretation of exactly what those twenty-seven words actually mean... That argument has been ongoing for rather a long time...
Were any of those proposing amendments lawyers, by any chance...?
(I'm thinking Vroomfondel, Majikthise and Deep Thought here...)
And so we're into the 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' interpretation of exactly what those twenty-seven words actually mean... That argument has been ongoing for rather a long time...
Were any of those proposing amendments lawyers, by any chance...?
(I'm thinking Vroomfondel, Majikthise and Deep Thought here...)
In reply to Trangia:
That's the usual tactic. Wait until the issue has faded in people's minds - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/nra-guns-las-vegas-crisis-p...
> The NRA has been strangely silent regarding the latest attrocity . It hasn't condemned it, neither has it tried to excuse it.
That's the usual tactic. Wait until the issue has faded in people's minds - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/nra-guns-las-vegas-crisis-p...
2
In reply to Dave Perry:
They don't have to give up their guns. They just need to adopt a working regulatory system, and stop individuals amassing enough armaments to mount a coup in a small country (one survey found that 3% of Americans own 50% of the guns! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/19/just-three-percent-o...
One thing that Charles Arthur suggested on Twitter was that guns should be insured the way cars are, so you can't have a gun unless you insure it. That would make a lot of people think twice, and make it very expensive to keep a large arsenal.
> We can chew over this as much as we like. There is no way Trump or the American people are going to give up their guns.
They don't have to give up their guns. They just need to adopt a working regulatory system, and stop individuals amassing enough armaments to mount a coup in a small country (one survey found that 3% of Americans own 50% of the guns! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/19/just-three-percent-o...
One thing that Charles Arthur suggested on Twitter was that guns should be insured the way cars are, so you can't have a gun unless you insure it. That would make a lot of people think twice, and make it very expensive to keep a large arsenal.
1
In reply to Bob Kemp:
Insure it against what?
> One thing that Charles Arthur suggested on Twitter was that guns should be insured the way cars are, so you can't have a gun unless you insure it.
Insure it against what?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Third party insurance.
Third party insurance.
1
In reply to Trangia:
This rather good suggestion has been doing the rounds on twitter
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLJz2D8UQAAs38k.jpg
Meanwhile, as the NRA makes no comment, and the usual "thoughts and prayers but do nothing" bullshit goes on, there are already those claiming that this, like Sandy Hook and Viginia Tech etc, was all faked by gun control advocates.
This rather good suggestion has been doing the rounds on twitter
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLJz2D8UQAAs38k.jpg
Meanwhile, as the NRA makes no comment, and the usual "thoughts and prayers but do nothing" bullshit goes on, there are already those claiming that this, like Sandy Hook and Viginia Tech etc, was all faked by gun control advocates.
6
1
In reply to Bob Kemp:
But the bloke who just killed in the USA was a rather well off retired accountant. He had at least 16 guns. But he was only using one at a time to murder and injure.
I don't think he would have been put off by having to insure them. Perhaps he'd have only kept ........errrr?? 8 guns - a 50% reduction. But he'd still have been capable of murdering the same number of people.
But the bloke who just killed in the USA was a rather well off retired accountant. He had at least 16 guns. But he was only using one at a time to murder and injure.
I don't think he would have been put off by having to insure them. Perhaps he'd have only kept ........errrr?? 8 guns - a 50% reduction. But he'd still have been capable of murdering the same number of people.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Yeah, I'm not convinced that individuals would be put off by insurance requirements. It might make a difference to the number of smaller scale incidents but isn't likely to have much impact on the criminal or insane elements. But I would think that it could have the effect of introducing an informal regulatory structure via the insurance companys' requirements.
Yeah, I'm not convinced that individuals would be put off by insurance requirements. It might make a difference to the number of smaller scale incidents but isn't likely to have much impact on the criminal or insane elements. But I would think that it could have the effect of introducing an informal regulatory structure via the insurance companys' requirements.
In reply to Dave Perry:
Is the issue not the fact that you can have automatic weapons, rather than have multiple single shot weapons?
Small steps, first outlaw automatic weapons , then tackle the wider gun ownership culture.
> But the bloke who just killed in the USA was a rather well off retired accountant. He had at least 16 guns. But he was only using one at a time to murder and injure.
> I don't think he would have been put off by having to insure them. Perhaps he'd have only kept ........errrr?? 8 guns - a 50% reduction. But he'd still have been capable of murdering the same number of people.
Is the issue not the fact that you can have automatic weapons, rather than have multiple single shot weapons?
Small steps, first outlaw automatic weapons , then tackle the wider gun ownership culture.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...