NRA sues Florida to block new gun laws.

[Stormdash]

Which you must admit, is a fucking lame excuse at this point, if the US goverment really became oppressive and used it's military against the people, pistols and a few semi automatics would do nada against tanks, drones etc. etc. This "militia" dream, would make the Taliban look like a fucking beast. It's a retarded excuse for keeping the guns that gives some people a hard on,

I always find it amusing that people think Americans would be so terrible at armed insurrection compared to, say, the Taliban. Because having more diverse geography, vastly superior infrastructure to leverage, higher overall education, better overall physical health, an larger percentage of population with backgrounds in military or civilian law enforcement, and (at the heart of the matter) a vastly superior potential arsenal... those are things that would make Americans bad at that sort of thing?

But I digress.

The 2nd Amendment isn't explicitly "for" opposing one's own government, it's an implicit component to the relationship between a free individual and government in general, and definitely echoes similar concepts found in the Declaration of Independence. What it's for is the ability of the militia (which both at the time and indeed in federal law here today, means the civilian citizenry itself) to be able to competently serve in their role in the "security of a free State". That's nothing that you can't find in the oath of citizenship people still take today, which in this language mirrors that which people swear going into the regular military -- "...that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

The "militia purpose" discussed in Heller and understood by the Framers was exactly that -- for the event that the unorganized Militia has to muster to protect the body politic, they will be able to do so with the competence and professionalism of regular military, i.e. to be "well-regulated", and that for that reason the right of the people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

*this phrase, "right of the people", appears in three places in the Bill of Rights, in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments. Without fail, in every context, this phrase has been understood to refer to an individual liberty interest of citizens. It was undoubtedly chosen intentionally for exactly that kind of uniform interpretation.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"National Gun Industry Sales Lobbyist" association strikes again

[Jtbrig7390]

No, it's not. It's to give the people a means to defend themselves from the government.

And this is a really poor excuse seeing how they can use a cheap drone to kill someone half the world over.

[cubby]

I was referring to the ACTUAL meaning, not the NRA drivel that many people believe.

Exactly. I love that people still think the 2nd is about being able to fight the government in an uprising.

[Stormdash]

Exactly. I love that people still think the 2nd is about being able to fight the government in an uprising.

It's at least a plausible interpretation of the text and legislative history, as opposed to the abject nonsense that is this delusion that the 2nd entry on a list of 10 restrictions on the power of government, is actually a grant of power to the government. That is just counter-factual, anti-historical bullshit. Any such arsenal power people want to pretend 2A is would have been drafted right into Article IV of the Constitution. The entire existence of the Bill of Rights and all drafts of it was to place more direct and express limits on the power of government and more direct and express protections of the liberty of the individual, which is what the phrase "right of the people" refers to every time it appears.

[Ripster42]

Really now? Let's take a look at instances where the government was oppressive in US history:

- Slavery
- Jim Crow
- Japanese Internment
- Manifest Destiny

Please tell me how the Second Amendment helped prevent or end these instances. Because "protecting the people from the government" sounds an awful lot like "protecting white people from minorities".

Which you must admit, is a fucking lame excuse at this point, if the US goverment really became oppressive and used it's military against the people, pistols and a few semi automatics would do nada against tanks, drones etc. etc. This "militia" dream, would make the Taliban look like a fucking beast. It's a retarded excuse for keeping the guns that gives some people a hard on,

And this is a really poor excuse seeing how they can use a cheap drone to kill someone half the world over.

I notice you all ignored the rest of my post, including the "it's outdated and largely pointless" bit. Just because I know what it says doesn't mean I agree with it.

[Ghostpanther]

True, but I hope they are open to others joining. Or would they be afraid of new people, lol.




That's not quite what I said.

You can join them cubby. Do a search for NRA.

I know. It is what I hold to be true.

- - - Updated - - -

I pulled this from a NYTimes article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/u...-gun-bill.html

Thanks for the info!! It appears I can rest about the mental health provision then. Seems like it does have some checks and balances. So the NRA must be contesting it based on the rifle purchase age being raised to 21. Which I read had some exceptions also. Such as active military personnel being exempt.

[Kaleredar]

It's at least a plausible interpretation of the text and legislative history, as opposed to the abject nonsense that is this delusion that the 2nd entry on a list of 10 restrictions on the power of government, is actually a grant of power to the government. That is just counter-factual, anti-historical bullshit. Any such arsenal power people want to pretend 2A is would have been drafted right into Article IV of the Constitution. The entire existence of the Bill of Rights and all drafts of it was to place more direct and express limits on the power of government and more direct and express protections of the liberty of the individual, which is what the phrase "right of the people" refers to every time it appears.

See here's the problem with your interpretation. It's the "nebulous interpretation" of what you think the second ammendment says.

Most gun-nuts think the second amendment says something along the lines of "guns=good, guns for all no matter the reason or person." Which, obviously, is not what it says.

Let's take a look:
"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 amendment itself describes the ownership of arms as being part of the "security of a free state." As in, in service to the country.

I also don't see gun-nuts going around belching anything about the "well regulated" part either. They're picking the last half of the amendment and ignoring the entire first part.


You know what something that's "well regulated" requires? Regulations.

[Tinfoy Lat]

Thanks for the info!! It appears I can rest about the mental health provision then. Seems like it does have some checks and balances. So the NRA must be contesting it based on the rifle purchase age being raised to 21. Which I read had some exceptions also. Such as active military personnel being exempt.

Here's the relevant parts from the same nytimes article:

• Raise the minimum age. The bill would change the minimum age for all gun purchases to 21 from 18 — a provision that would have prohibited the Parkland gunman, Nikolas Cruz, 19, from legally buying the rifle he used in his massacre. This is a divergence from federal law, under which people cannot buy handguns from licensed dealers until they are 21, but can buy shotguns and rifles — often much deadlier than handguns — at 18. (Unlicensed sales, such as at gun shows, have looser restrictions.) Governor Scott and Senator Marco Rubio, a fellow Republican, endorsed the age increase last month.

• Create a waiting period. Prospective gun buyers would have to wait three days, or until a background check is completed, whichever is longer. There would be some exceptions, including for police officers, members of the military, licensed hunters and licensed concealed carriers.

[Stormspark]

Exactly. I love that people still think the 2nd is about being able to fight the government in an uprising.

The only way there would be an uprising is if there was an actual civil war. The military would fragment, and one side or the other would get more military support.

[Stormdash]

See here's the problem with your interpretation. It's the "nebulous interpretation" of what you think the second ammendment says.

Most gun-nuts think the second amendment says something along the lines of "guns=good, guns for all no matter the reason or person." Which, obviously, is not what it says.

Let's take a look:
"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 amendment itself describes the ownership of arms as being part of the "security of a free state." As in, in service to the country.

I also don't see gun-nuts going around belching anything about the "well regulated" part either. They're picking the last half of the amendment and ignoring the entire first part.


You know what something that's "well regulated" requires? Regulations.

My reading is the reading that is faithful to the common use of language at the time the law was written, the writings about both it specifically and the concept of armed citizenry in general. It's as "nebulous" and inscrutable a fact of history as D-Day, which is to say, not at all.

You, here, are repeating the same fallacy of reading 18th century law with only late 20th/early 21st century common usage. But here, "well-regulated" as it was used in 2A isn't even artifactual, we still use it the same way today. "Are those golf clubs regulation?" "Those aren't national guard, those are regular army". "Regulated" means "to be made regular" and "regular" as used in 2A means competence, professional, up-to-specification. So to be "well-regulated" for the militia means for it to be good at what it might be asked to do, basically. And it fits very well into the clause, that a competent, professional Militia IS necessary to the security of a free State. I already gave concrete of the Militia as referring to civilians not currently in the guard or regular army in contemporary law, which in and of itself should be enough to prove the legal heritage of same in the drafting, but any number of writings of Jefferson and numerous others could do the same job.

Ignoring historical and current legal fact about what "militia" refers to, and ignoring a still-used definition of "well-regulated" that is obviously the most contextually appropriate to the complete sentence, are the mandatory steps to trying to pretend that the 2nd Amendment, a protection of individual liberty, is instead a grant of government power.

But my favorite is always how nobody can explain that when writing down and settling on these 10 proposals in the Bill of Rights, that only existed at all to soothe concerns that the new government might run amok with power, that nine of them would restrict the power of government and one would create a new one. And that one would arbitrarily be placed 2nd on the list, instead of first, or last, just for organizational coherency. Because it's obviously nonsense! The 2nd Amendment does what the other nine do -- express limits on the power of the government over a right of individual citizens.

[szechuan]

My reading is the reading that is faithful to the common use of language at the time the law was written, the writings about both it specifically and the concept of armed citizenry in general.

I understand your point, however times are completely different from when the founding founders would of never imagined the possibilities of modern human innovation, and face it. The Founding Fathers as smart as they were had faults. They were not perfect, and they would not have used the electoral college system if they saw modern technology either.

[Deleted]

I'm personally in favor of stricter gun owner regulation, but i'm also not foolish enough to think it would actually have any significant impact. Make something illegal and people who want it just get it illegally.
Hypothetically, if the national government would make assault rifles illegal... Well, good luck disarming the militia's. You're going to have to send in the army and fight a civil war. They will never surrender their weapons. Especially not as long as the second amendment isn't removed from the constitution - which the republicans will never allow. Hell, not even the democrats would allow that.
If the national government would - more realistically - set very limited additional regulation regarding firearm acquisition, in the same manner that florida is doing now - legislation that is purely symbolic and in no way effective - then they're just creating more revenue for black markets, mobs, and illegal arm traffickers.
To sum things up: sure, increased age for purchasing guns or even just semi's, increased background checks, bans on things like bump stocks, all in favor. But it's mostly just symbolic. It would have virtually zero impact on the frequency of mass shootings.

[Healing Rain]

I'd be interested to know how many murderers get their guns illegally. Reason? A smart murderer will get their gun illegally because if they bought one legally and left it behind at the crime scene it would lead right to them.

[Toppy]

The nra is becoming a cult at this rate.

They passed cult status a long time ago along side their buddies in the conservative party.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'd be interested to know how many murderers get their guns illegally. Reason? A smart murderer will get their gun illegally because if they bought one legally and left it behind at the crime scene it would lead right to them.

Why would a "smart" murderer leave the murder weapon at the crime scene?

[Toppy]

I'd be interested to know how many murderers get their guns illegally. Reason? A smart murderer will get their gun illegally because if they bought one legally and left it behind at the crime scene it would lead right to them.

I can almost guarantee the majority are legally owned or purchased from someone else who got them legally. Sadly we dont know because the NRA is damn good at preventing such studies from happening.

A lot of states don't leave much, if any, of a paper trail.

[Mafic]

Florida did something right for a change?

Quick tell Florida man of this!

[Toppy]

Why would a "smart" murderer leave the murder weapon at the crime scene?

Havent you ever watched CSI? Happens all the time!

Duh

[Themius]

do people in canada live in constant fear that their government is going to turn on them so they need guns so they can kill their government?