The 2nd Amendment

[betsy]

The second amendment is at the heart of the debate for gun control.  But what is the 2nd amendment? 

 

Amendment II

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.

 

The second amendment was created for the purpose of  preventing the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army.   Some say this is now irrelevant, since we're no longer talking about the birth of a nation.  No state relies on its state militias for its freedom from the federal government. 

However, one thing that's being overlooked is that the founding generations had believed that governments are prone to use government soldiers to oppress its own population.  All we need to do is looked at other countries.  How many dictatorial regimes were established through the use of its country's  soldiers?  How many generals had staged a coup?

 

Furthermore, militias are never obsolete.  They can be used for other purposes such as responding to sudden invasions or emergencies. 

Movies such as The Last of the Mohicans, and Patriot - had given a glimpse of how militias were used to defend the country. Militias consisted of farmers.

Usually,  the outbreak of war doesn't allow time for properly training new recruits - how many young lads died in previous wars who'd lacked the training?

 

I think, now - more than ever - is a crucial time to protect the 2nd amendment. 

A dis-armed population is a sitting duck.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by betsy

[Boges]

So why have any restriction on firearms and/or weapons? Why can't Militias have their own Navy or Air Force? Why not private ownership of tanks? Cruise Missles, Anti-Aircraft Guns, Nuclear weapons? 

We're stuck in a debate about automatic weapons for recreational shooters, but if we're going to keep to the letter of the law of the Second Amendment a militia that can counter the government would be woefully inadequate with current restrictions. 

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Boges

[betsy]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

So why have any restriction on firearms and/or weapons? Why can't Militias have their own Navy or Air Force? Why not private ownership of tanks? Cruise Missles, Anti-Aircraft Guns, Nuclear weapons? 

We're stuck in a debate about automatic weapons for recreational shooters, but if we're going to keep to the letter of the law of the Second Amendment a militia that can counter the government would be woefully inadequate with current restrictions. 

 

There is regulation on militias.

Some uber-rich civilians can afford to buy fighter jets.  Civilians can own decommissioned tanks. 

But we're not really talking about militias here, are we?  We don't see farmers or rural folks forming a militia!  We're just talking about the right to bear arms for defense, or hunting.

 

The goal is not gun control.  That's just the facade. 

What the alt-left is aiming for, is to dis-arm the population.  It's all about the ultimate control.

Edited October 6, 2017 by betsy

[Boges]

11 minutes ago, betsy said:

There is regulation on militias.

Some uber-rich civilians can afford to buy fighter jets.  Civilians can own decommissioned tanks. 

But we're not really talking about militias here, are we?  We don't see farmers or rural folks forming a militia!  We're just talking about the right to bear arms for defense, or hunting.

The issue is not gun control.  That's just the facade. 

What the alt-left is aiming for, is to dis-arm the population.  It's all about the ultimate control.

No it's not about militias, so the idea that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct is quite silly, since the 2nd amendment is about militias. 

So inorder to have a gun culture, people cling to this amendment as the way the founders intended it. 

What's stupid is the idea that any regulation is a slippery slope to dis-armarment. Obama was in charge for 8 years, 2 of which he had control of both houses of congress and he never tried to de-arm the population. 

An interesting theory I've heard is that the reason the NRA and some Republicans are open to banning devices that can make a rifle automatic is a bit of a nod to gun makers who are hurting now that Trump is in office. People aren't flocking to buy guns anymore, like they did in the wake of Sandy Hook. Nothing makes people want to buy something more than when they fear it'll be banned tomorrow. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Boges

[betsy]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

No it's not about militias, so the idea that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct is quite silly, since the 2nd amendment is about militias. 

So inorder to have a gun culture, people cling to this amendment as the way the founders intended it. 

It may have been about militias, but it is also about the right to bear arms.  It says that!

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Though the specific purpose for which the 2nd amendment was intended  for  at the time however, does not make it obsolete today.   The possibility of the same kind of threat is real - we see it happen in other countries.

Furthermore, defense does not necessarily have to mean against another human.  What about wild animals?  A bear that entered your property, or your house?

 

 

Quote

What's stupid is the idea that any regulation is a slippery slope to dis-armarment.

Well....your phrase is rather interesting:

So inorder to have a gun culture,

GUN CULTURE.  That pertains to all firearms......whether they're high-powered automatic  or simple hunting rifles, whether regulated or not.   

So....it's not a stupid idea at all.  There are those who want to see all firearms banned.

 

people cling to this amendment as the way the founders intended it.

People cling to that amendment because it is a right.  The right to own, keep and bear arms.

 

To voluntarily give up a right,  is what would be a stupid idea.

 

 

Quote

Obama was in charge for 8 years, 2 of which he had control of both houses of congress and he never tried to de-arm the population. 

It doesn't happen overnight - especially in a democratic country like the USA, and especially when there is opposition to contend with.  

 

Quote

 

An interesting theory I've heard is that the reason the NRA and some Republicans are open to banning devices that can make a rifle automatic is a bit of a nod to gun makers who are hurting now that Trump is in office.

People aren't flocking to buy guns anymore, like they did in the wake of Sandy Hook. Nothing makes people want to buy something more than when they fear it'll be banned tomorrow. 

 

The 2nd amendment does not state that it's mandatory to bear arms. 

It simply just gives you the right to do so, should you want to.  That should be good news to lefties that there are less people buying guns. 

Of course, those numbers of gun buyers most likely reflect the numbers of law-abiding citizens......but not criminals.

From what I hear, cops are even outgunned by some criminals.

Edited October 6, 2017 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

...The 2nd amendment does not state that it's mandatory to bear arms. 

It simply just gives you the right to do so, should you want to.  That should be good news to lefties that there are less people buying guns. 

 

 

Agreed, and the right to own and bear arms has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.   

Lefty laws trying to disenfranchise Americans of their constitutional rights have been struck down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[Omni]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

There is regulation on militias.

Some uber-rich civilians can afford to buy fighter jets.  Civilians can own decommissioned tanks. 

But we're not really talking about militias here, are we?  We don't see farmers or rural folks forming a militia!  We're just talking about the right to bear arms for defense, or hunting.

 

The goal is not gun control.  That's just the facade. 

What the alt-left is aiming for, is to dis-arm the population.  It's all about the ultimate control.

Now there's the exact type of paranoia the likes of the NRA likes to use. And amazingly there are some dumb enough to buy it.

[hot enough]

11 hours ago, betsy said:

However, one thing that's being overlooked is that the founding generations had believed that governments are prone to use government soldiers to oppress its own population.  All we need to do is looked at other countries.  How many dictatorial regimes were established through the use of its country's  soldiers?  How many generals had staged a coup?

Excellent point, Betsy. In the case of the USA, about half the total number of countries in the world.

I think, now - more than ever - is a crucial time to protect the 2nd amendment. 

A dis-armed population is a sitting duck.

And the US often had the dictators that they had installed take away all the arms of the native population. 

Isn't this a great example of the always stunning hypocrisy of the USA?

Edited October 6, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed, and the right to own and bear arms has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.   

Lefty laws trying to disenfranchise Americans of their constitutional rights have been struck down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Always half truths and less. This was hardly a unanimous decision, it was 5-4 and may well have been the other way if the court hadn't had a crop of right wingers who ignored both history and reality. 

Quote

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".^[51] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.^[51]

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, betsy said:

I think, now - more than ever - is a crucial time to protect the 2nd amendment. 

A dis-armed population is a sitting duck.

Almost every other western democracy has wide ranging gun-controls and none have turned into police states.  That said, virtually everyone in Iraq had guns or easy access to them, including millions of AK-47's, during all the time Saddam Hussein was in power.  Ironically when Americans moved in they immediately started restricting when, who, where and what weapons people were allowed to have or carry. 

 

Quote

What about wild animals?  A bear that entered your property, or your house?

I've had bears wandering through my yard without incident for decades...I'm far more likely to be hurt by some armed freaked out neighbour when the bear wanders into their yard.

Edited October 6, 2017 by eyeball

[hot enough]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That said, virtually everyone in Iraq had guns or easy access to them, including millions of AK-47's, during all the time Saddam Hussein was in power.  Ironically when Americans moved in they immediately started restricting when, who, where and what weapons people were allowed to have or carry. 

Yeah, I noted that and how it was such stunning, yet absolutely normal hypocrisy from the USA. 

Here we had an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation by the US and the USA threw all its silly arguments regarding the 2nd amendment right out the window. 

Nobody does it, hypocrisy, better than the world's biggest hypocrites. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by hot enough

[bush_cheney2004]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I've had bears wandering through my yard without incident for decades...

 

So what...a hunter just shot a big collared bear in BC last month...with a BIG GUN !

https://globalnews.ca/news/3774860/hunter-that-killed-bear-148-in-b-c-knew-she-was-wearing-a-tracking-collar/

There are millions of guns in Canada.

Edited October 6, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[hot enough]

So what ... an American is studiously avoiding the fact that the 2nd amendment isn't nearly as secure as that American falsely claimed it to be. 

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Agreed...2nd Amendment rights are more secure than ever because of multiple Supreme Court rulings, state laws for must issue concealed carry licenses,  and stand your ground legislation.

Get your new handgun...today !

[-TSS-]

When the 2nd amendment was originally written the average gun had a precision of hitting a barn-door from 10 metres away.

[Bonam]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Almost every other western democracy has wide ranging gun-controls and none have turned into police states. 

But many of them are well on their way. Massive state surveillance is completely pervasive. Democracy is increasingly less and less responsive to the wishes and issues of the voters, and the political class has made themselves into a new aristocracy. Meanwhile, populations are increasingly polarized over ideological issues. The militarization of police forces continues apace. The warning against state tyranny is no less relevant now than it ever was. 

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Bonam said:

But many of them are well on their way. Massive state surveillance is completely pervasive. Democracy is increasingly less and less responsive to the wishes and issues of the voters, and the political class has made themselves into a new aristocracy. Meanwhile, populations are increasingly polarized over ideological issues. The militarization of police forces continues apace. The warning against state tyranny is no less relevant now than it ever was. 

As George Orwell answered to the question "how do we prevent Big Brother?  "Just don't let it happen".

Too late for George's solution, we'll probably never get the state to roll things back on its own now.  What we need is a political party whose running candidates pledge to remain wired to the internet for all to see for the duration of their terms.  Failing that we'd need a time viewer which I recall you saying was impossible so...it is what it is.

 

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

When the 2nd amendment was originally written the average gun had a precision of hitting a barn-door from 10 metres away.

 

Rifled muskets and long rifles were far more accurate than that.    Just ask the dead red coats.

Edited October 7, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Rifled muskets and long rifles were far more accurate than that.    Just ask the dead red coats.

Always glorifying USA slaughtering people. This is exactly why the USA is the most war mongering "nation" ever to plague the planet. 93% of its years making wars on other people. Absolutely sickening!!!

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So what...

Why do you hate it so much when the truth is presented is presented to you?

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Always glorifying USA...

 

Always attacking the USA....must be jealous.

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Always attacking the USA....must be jealous.

You dishonestly cropped what I said, which was "Always glorifying USA slaughtering people." 

Yeah, that is really something to be jealous of. Maybe if Hitler and [pick any US president] were trying to outdo each other for slaughtering folks with glee, but come on, you really think slaughtering people is something to be glorified?

[bush_cheney2004]

Off topic....Godwin's Law proven yet again.

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Off topic....Godwin's Law proven yet again.

It isn't a law. You don't understand the English language.

[hot enough]

One of the many myths about the 2nd amendment.