Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

[alfablue]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

The definition of the word at the time it was written matters. At that time the Minutemen (no, not UMass) were militia under their definition. Minutemen were independent civilians.

Frankly, would the National Guard of today be viewed as a "standing army" (more than two year appropriations) by the framers is an equally debatable question.

So does the point of what it mattered. Many of the founding fathers did NOT want a standing army, so the entire point of the 2nd was to be capable of raising a temporary army so that the newly formed US could defend itself.

After those founders changed their mind, the whole point of the 2nd amendment became moot- as it was not required to be able to muster an army out of our private citizens.

Yet now it remains, and we have weapons that our founders could not have even dreamed about, capable of murdering as many people as a magazine will hold as fast as you can pull a trigger that many times.

It's pretty darned funny that people like you twist the meaning of the words so much when there's no way in heck the development of weapons could have been envisioned. If we are going to be that literal, then you can have flint lock muzzle loaders.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

I guess I always assumed that amendments like the first amendment and second amendment weren't constructed for the granting of rights to citizens. Instead, they were drafted in such a way as to recognize a preexisting, underlying right, like the right to free speech or the right to own and possess a weapon. They were drafted not to grant or enumerate the right, but instead say, "these rights shall not be restricted by the government."

Prior to the Bill of Rights, prior to the Constitution, prior to even the war for independence, people had a right to bear arms. I don't think that was restricted to their involvement with the militia. They used guns for hunting and for protection. But it was a basic right that people had that the framers of the bill of rights thought was important enough to protect.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

I guess I always assumed that amendments like the first amendment and second amendment weren't constructed for the granting of rights to citizens. Instead, they were drafted in such a way as to recognize a preexisting, underlying right, like the right to free speech or the right to own and possess a weapon. They were drafted not to grant or enumerate the right, but instead say, "these rights shall not be restricted by the government."

Prior to the Bill of Rights, prior to the Constitution, prior to even the war for independence, people had a right to bear arms. I don't think that was restricted to their involvement with the militia. They used guns for hunting and for protection. But it was a basic right that people had that the framers of the bill of rights thought was important enough to protect.

Prior to the Bill of Rights, English Common Law and colonial practice recognized gun control measures.

Your understanding of the Bill of Rights is quite correct: it delineates where the government may interfere with personal liberty. It is a declaration of the restrictions on liberty, not a statement of those liberties. Liberties not mentioned, most importantly the right of privacy, are implied by their omission.

Your understanding of the right to bear arms in the Founders' period is quite incorrect and was manufactured by the gun lobby to boost their sales at the cost of human life. It's not your fault; it's just ignorance.

 

[aparch]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

The second amendment wasn't an issue in the middle 1800's when frontier towns would make you check you weapons in before entering town.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Prior to the Bill of Rights, English Common Law and colonial practice recognized gun control measures.

Your understanding of the Bill of Rights is quite correct: it delineates where the government may interfere with personal liberty. It is a declaration of the restrictions on liberty, not a statement of those liberties. Liberties not mentioned, most importantly the right of privacy, are implied by their omission.

Your understanding of the right to bear arms in the Founders' period is quite incorrect and was manufactured by the gun lobby to boost their sales at the cost of human life. It's not your fault; it's just ignorance.

Well, what is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" that they wrote about in the second amendment then? It has to be something, don't you agree. Is that right enumerated anywhere else?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Well, what is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" that they wrote about in the second amendment then? It has to be something, don't you agree. Is that right enumerated anywhere else?

Says it right in the first clause:

What: "a well-regulated militia"
For what purpose: "the security of a free state."

AFAIC if we are strict constructionist the establishment of a standing army eliminates the 2nd Amendment. As you say, why else are those words there?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Says it right in the first clause:

What: "a well-regulated militia"
For what purpose: "the security of a free state."

AFAIC if we are strict constructionist the establishment of a standing army eliminates the 2nd Amendment. As you say, why else are those words there?

The militia clause is clearly a statement of purpose. But it's not the operative language of the amendment. The operative language of the amendment is pretty clear that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

 

[aparch]

The militia clause is clearly a statement of purpose. But it's not the operative language of the amendment. The operative language of the amendment is pretty clear that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

It's not separate thoughts like Amendment Five, it's all one. Therefore the rights of the citizens in the militia are not to be infringed.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

It's not separate thoughts like Amendment Five, it's all one. Therefore the rights of the citizens in the militia are not to be infringed.

If that's what they had intended, wouldn't it have been easy to just write, "The right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

If that's what they had intended, wouldn't it have been easy to just write, "The right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Perhaps, but that still doesn't logically justify ignoring, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". With that context leading the way I don't comprehend interpreting, "the people" to indicate individuals outside the confines of said Militia.

 

[duper]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

The definition of the word at the time it was written matters. At that time the Minutemen (no, not UMass) were militia under their definition. Minutemen were independent civilians.

Frankly, would the National Guard of today be viewed as a "standing army" (more than two year appropriations) by the framers is an equally debatable question.

The definition of the word at the time it was written is NOT what matters. The Federalist Papers make it clear that the intention of the authors of the Constitution is that it be continually reinterpreted to reflect future modern times. The defintion of the word NOW matters more than the definition of the word 250 years ago.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

Perhaps, but that still doesn't logically justify ignoring, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". With that context leading the way I don't comprehend interpreting, "the people" to indicate individuals outside the confines of said Militia.

Yeah, I'm not sure. I guess all I can say is that "the people" seems to be a phrase that the framers used to signify the citizenry as a whole, such as "we the people."

It's an interesting amendment when you look at the way it's drafted compared with some of the others. The others are much more direct and lack the prefatory clause.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

The Federalist Papers make it clear that the intention of the authors of the Constitution is that it be continually reinterpreted to reflect future modern times.

OK, reinterpret " ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Or as SJ notes, "the people" (citizenry), not "the militia".

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

OK, reinterpret " ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Or as SJ notes, "the people" (citizenry), not "the militia".

The best argument against the right of individuals to bear arms is the argument that "the people" refers basically to the citizenry as a whole, rather than individuals within that citizenry. IMHO, that's really the only argument that has even the remotest bit of merit to it, but I don't think that's necessarily been accepted by the courts.

 

[alfablue]

OK, reinterpret " ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Or as SJ notes, "the people" (citizenry), not "the militia".

The people WERE the militia. They could be asked at any time to step up and defend, as it was all we had

The amendment is the whole thing, not just the phrase you like best.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

My favorite phrase is ...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[duper]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

OK, reinterpret " ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Or as SJ notes, "the people" (citizenry), not "the militia".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the clauses in the First Amendment that I bolded such that restricting free speech and peaceable assembly can be allowable depending on circumstances. There is clear legal precedent for the Supreme Court to determine whether or not certain prohibitions infringe, abridge, etc. This is why gun control people focus on the clause that gun rights people like to ignore. That clause, taken to mean what it means in the present day, makes it very possible that restricting the right to own certain weapons would NOT qualify as an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, preventing people from owning weapins that, in practical use in the real world, are used primarily to commit murder, is not necessarily infringing the people's right to keep and bear arms (whether you're considering people to be the plural of person or a collective singular).

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

You wrongly assume I own those. I'm a pistol target shooter.

I have a coworker like you in Texas. He trains cops on the side. He doesn't really scare or annoy me in any way other than how he votes (which he has no problem telling you ).

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

I have a coworker like you in Texas. He trains cops on the side.

I don't train them; I just out-shoot them on the range.


(My father was an Army MP, and cops don't spend near the time on the range people think they do.)

 

[joecct]

Re: Guns For Everyone!: Another Mass Shooting!

<img src="https://cdn.alphacomedy.com/25/2019/05_15_19_ff2ec03c0e90195498cebbec68306939.jpg" /src>