Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[LedZeppelin]

A libertarian think tank ain't exactly the best source, lol.

Do you not see the link to the PDF with 250ish sources to make their argument?

[Endus]

Vermont Constitution 1777, 10 years before the Constitution, an obviously northern state. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

So not from the Constitution or any discussion of the Bill of Rights, and explicitly starting out with a statement regarding personal defense, which the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution does not include.

https://www.independent.org/publicat...e.asp?id=13815

feel free to leave with your revisionist hot takes LMAO

A source that has unapologetically pushed climate change denial conspiracy garbage, in the past, particularly Fred Singer's garbage.

You're really have to gonna do better than that.

Here's how you can tell these guys are pushing bullshit propaganda;

Contrary to Bogus, no secret conspiracy was afoot to make “the right of the people” to bear arms an instrument of slavery. Instead, the abolitionists, and then the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, would use those words to show that “the people” meant just that. African Americans were people and were thus entitled to all of the rights of Americans.

Emphasis mine. Arguing that the Founders were suggesting blacks had equal rights while many of them owned slaves is absolutely fuckin' ridiculous and not a take that can be taken as good-faith in nature. The USA was a slaving nation from it's founding, and that was written into the Constitution directly, before the Bill of Rights was even passed.

[PhaelixWW]

Let's reach into the grab bag of past posts on the subject...

While no other country exercises it in precisely the same way, the legal, protected right to keep and bear arms is not solely the purview of the US. In fact, the US got the idea from the English Bill of Rights in 1689.

This one's an older code, but still checks out:

And inasmuch as the US Bill of Rights was patterned off the English Bill of Rights, the ostensible purpose of acknowledging a right to bear arms is for the purpose of defense, both of self and of country.

SCOTUS agrees, of course.

Notably, in addition to the right to keep arms for self-defense (2nd) the English Bill of Rights also included concepts such as freedom of speech (1st), no cruel and unusual punishment or excessive bail (8th), right to trial (6th/7th), etc.

The idea that self-defense wasn't considered an aspect of the 2nd Amendment from the start is just preposterous. It certainly wasn't the only consideration, but the 2nd Amendment definitely was based at least in part on an individual right to self-defense, as later recognized in DC v. Heller.

[Endus]

Let's reach into the grab bag of past posts on the subject...

This one's an older code, but still checks out:


Notably, in addition to the right to keep arms for self-defense (2nd) the English Bill of Rights also included concepts such as freedom of speech (1st), no cruel and unusual punishment or excessive bail (8th), right to trial (6th/7th), etc.

The idea that self-defense wasn't considered an aspect of the 2nd Amendment from the start is just preposterous. It certainly wasn't the only consideration, but the 2nd Amendment definitely was based at least in part on an individual right to self-defense, as later recognized in DC v. Heller.

It's weird that it doesn't mention it directly, then. When comparable drafts of comparable rights, even in the budding States, were doing so.

Also, here's the English Bill of Rights (1689)'s actual text; "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

So not "the people", just "Protestants", and their self-defense rights are explicitly called out, Militias not mentioned at all. You're kind of making my point for me that such wording was commonplace at the time the American Bill of Rights was drafted, but they chose n to include a personal defence component outright, as the other examples that keep getting posted clearly do​.

I'm getting an awful lot of "but if HAS to be in there!" but pointing to other examples where such a right is included openly just makes it so much more questionable to claim that any such right can be inferred from the wording of the 2nd Amendment. Because it sure doesn't mention "personal defence" at all, nor any analogous terminology.

[LedZeppelin]

So not from the Constitution or any discussion of the Bill of Rights, and explicitly starting out with a statement regarding personal defense, which the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution does not include.



A source that has unapologetically pushed climate change denial conspiracy garbage, in the past, particularly Fred Singer's garbage.

You're really have to gonna do better than that.

Here's how you can tell these guys are pushing bullshit propaganda;



Emphasis mine. Arguing that the Founders were suggesting blacks had equal rights while many of them owned slaves is absolutely fuckin' ridiculous and not a take that can be taken as good-faith in nature. The USA was a slaving nation from it's founding, and that was written into the Constitution directly, before the Bill of Rights was even passed.

How the fuck do you simultaneously believe that because the second amendment doesnt mention self defense that self defense using guns isnt a right but somehow even though it doesnt mention slavery that its the original intent. It doesnt matter that 2A doesnt mention it either lmao its clearly unenumerated.

I dont give a shit what else they have written. Their paper is sourced and contains quotes from the original author who doesnt even drink his own kool aid. "Its not a new idea" Yeah it was "revealed" in 1998. Best kept secret. All your sources are "trust me bro" lmao. you have like 2 people versus like the most rudimentary understanding of US history lmao When discussing 2A in Congress they never mentioned slavery. This is might be the laziest revisionism of all time. The paper you are quoting literally says there is no direct evidence to be found supporting it.


Can you not read? It says the framers of the 14th amendment. You know...the one about equal protection under the law? This might be the strawmanist straw man ive seen lol.

The problem with your 2A thesis is all these independent states abolishing slavery and passing their own version of 2A in their state constitution AND still advocating for a version of 2A in the US Constitution. You have abolitionist states advocating for 2A yet you believe its somehow linked to slavery.

- - - Updated - - -

It's weird that it doesn't mention it directly, then. When comparable drafts of comparable rights, even in the budding States, were doing so.

Also, here's the English Bill of Rights (1689)'s actual text; "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

So not "the people", just "Protestants", and their self-defense rights are explicitly called out, Militias not mentioned at all. You're kind of making my point for me that such wording was commonplace at the time the American Bill of Rights was drafted, but they chose n to include a personal defence component outright, as the other examples that keep getting posted clearly do​.

I'm getting an awful lot of "but if HAS to be in there!" but pointing to other examples where such a right is included openly just makes it so much more questionable to claim that any such right can be inferred from the wording of the 2nd Amendment. Because it sure doesn't mention "personal defence" at all, nor any analogous terminology.

Just say you dont understand unenumerated rights, this would be so much easier lol. Constitution doesnt even mention the right to vote.

[PhaelixWW]

It's weird that it doesn't mention it directly, then.

Not really. It's not necessary to put every reason (as there were several) in the text of the Amendment, as the language of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty inclusive.

Also, here's the English Bill of Rights (1689)'s actual text; "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

I mean, obviously the US Bill of Rights isn't going to limit its scope to Protestants...

You're kind of making my point for me that such wording was commonplace at the time the American Bill of Rights was drafted, but they chose n to include a personal defence component outright, as the other examples that keep getting posted clearly do​.

Not really. The Founders, as mentioned, had more than one reason. In fact, it's far more telling that they didn't seek to limit it to one specific function, which heavily implies that the right supersedes any one single reason.

Regardless, the idea that self defense wasn't thought of at all is ludicrous, considering the source of the inspiration for the US Bill of Rights and many of its Amendments.

[Endus]

How the fuck do you simultaneously believe that because the second amendment doesnt mention self defense that self defense using guns isnt a right but somehow even though it doesnt mention slavery that its the original intent.

Because the first argument is discussing the semantic content of the 2nd Amendment itself, whereas the second argument is discussing the intent of those drafting the Second Amendment.

Said intent is literally irrelevant to the interpreted meaning of the wording itself. Even if you produced content by Founding Fathers saying they intended it to be a protection for arming one's self for self defense, again, I'd question why they chose not to follow the same wording as similar concurrent legal documents which so clearly did specify "personal defense".

Particularly as individual Founding Fathers don't speak for the whole. Pushing for X to be included by finding little support and seeing it written out means that no matter what that Founding Father intended, the drafted legislation does not support it.

It doesnt matter that 2A doesnt mention it either lmao its clearly unenumerated.

Yes. Exactly. The 2nd Amendment clearly does not specify any such thing.

So where are you getting it from?

I dont give a shit what else they have written. Their paper is sourced and contains quotes from the original author who doesnt even drink his own kool aid. "Its not a new idea" Yeah it was "revealed" in 1998. Best kept secret. All your sources are "trust me bro" lmao. you have like 2 people versus like the most rudimentary understanding of US history lmao When discussing 2A in Congress they never mentioned slavery. This is might be the laziest revisionism of all time. The paper you are quoting literally says there is no direct evidence to be found supporting it.

Haven't studied a lot of history, have you? Direct evidence isn't nearly as common as you think, and certainly not as necessary as you think.

The problem with your 2A thesis is all these independent states abolishing slavery and passing their own version of 2A in their state constitution AND still advocating for a version of 2A in the US Constitution. You have abolitionist states advocating for 2A yet you believe its somehow linked to slavery.

You keep saying "2A" like the wording is exactly the same. Check your own citation for the Vermont Constitution of 1777; it directly contradicts you trying to conflate these as if they're all the same. The Vermont Constitution includes personal defence explicitly and in the primary position, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't include personal defence at all. They aren't interchangeable.

- - - Updated - - -

Just say you dont understand unenumerated rights, this would be so much easier lol. Constitution doesnt even mention the right to vote.

And plenty of people didn't have any right to vote. Voting was a privilege. Voting was not a right, at all, until the passing of the 15th Amendment in 1870. When it was enumerated. Even then, only partially; it wasn't until the 19th Amendment in 1920 that women got the right to vote.

Kind of stepped into that one, didn't you?

[Mayhem]

I mean, obviously the US Bill of Rights isn't going to limit its scope to Protestants...

or to "as allowed by law"

obviously

so the influence was "have arms for their defence"

[PhaelixWW]

or to "as allowed by law"

obviously

so the influence was "have arms for their defence"

Yes, the Founders were less proscriptive than England a hundred years earlier. Fancy that.

[Mayhem]

Yes, the Founders were less proscriptive than England a hundred years earlier. Fancy that.

So the brilliant founding fathers were influenced by the English bill of rights because they couldn't figure out "have arms for defence" on their own? That's a take I really didn't see coming.

[PhaelixWW]

So the brilliant founding fathers were influenced by the English bill of rights because they couldn't figure out "have arms for defence" on their own? That's a take I really didn't see coming.

This post literally makes no sense to me. I'm going to go out on a limb, though, and say that I'm fairly certain you're wrong, whatever your point actually is.

There wasn't anything to "figure out" about it. The point of the Bill of Rights wasn't to say "okay, we're now going to give you these brand-new rights", it was to say "okay, we agree that we won't be allowed to take away these rights that you were already entitled to."

[Mayhem]

This post literally makes no sense to me. I'm going to go out on a limb, though, and say that I'm fairly certain you're wrong, whatever your point actually is.

There wasn't anything to "figure out" about it. The point of the Bill of Rights wasn't to say "okay, we're now going to give you these brand-new rights", it was to say "okay, we agree that we won't be allowed to take away these rights that you were already entitled to."

Hey, you brought up the influence part not me.

[PhaelixWW]

Hey, you brought up the influence part not me.

You're still babbling away without actually making sense. So much for the request for elaboration.

Yes, the Founders copied the idea for the Bill of Rights from the English version. But they made some substantive changes (presumable for the better, as they saw it), such as eliminating some of the attendant restrictions from the right, since, you know, it's a right and not a privilege.

[Armael]

@PhaelixWW The funny thing about laws is, they have to state the things they are doing or not doing. You cannot later decide to infer or assume something was said if it wasn't actually stated. Here's an example of just some text missing a grammatically correct comma, therefore changing the meaning of the statement. So, you wishing that that very vague sentence includes all of the things you want it to contain is disingenuous at best.

[PhaelixWW]

The funny thing about laws is, they have to state the things they are doing or not doing. You cannot later decide to infer or assume something was said if it wasn't actually stated.

That's not really the argument you think it is. In this case, the Amendment does state what it does, because the text is very broad and unrestricted. What some people are arguing about are some sort of "unwritten restrictions" that they think should be in place, which goes against the very thing you just stated. If we wanted to go by the exact text of the Amendment, there would be zero restrictions.

So, you wishing that that very vague sentence includes all of the things you want it to contain is disingenuous at best.

You don't really seem to understand what "disingenuous" even means. Quite literally, I'm the person saying that there's more meaning and fewer restrictions inherent in the short sentence (which is not really vague at all). I'm not the one trying to narrow it down in the absence of specific text to that effect.

And I don't have to wish anything, the restrictions that people are attempting to suppose aren't actually written. Regardless, the job of interpreting the meaning of the Constitution (should such be necessary) belongs to the Judicial branch in general, and SCOTUS in particular, so the only people with a legal say in it are they.

[Mayhem]

You're still babbling away without actually making sense. So much for the request for elaboration.

Yes, the Founders copied the idea for the Bill of Rights from the English version. But they made some substantive changes (presumable for the better, as they saw it), such as eliminating some of the attendant restrictions from the right, since, you know, it's a right and not a privilege.

Yeah, a right, not a privilege, because the right to bear arms can never be taken from you, under any circumstances.

[Specialka]

The 2nd Amendment was drafted for two reasons, and only two reasons;

1> So the federal government didn't need to maintain a standing army (the States would maintain "well-regulated militias"), and
2> To put down future slave rebellions as violently as possible.

That's it. #1's off the table, obviously, since there's a massive standing army. That leaves #2.

All this "I need it for self defense" malarkey is both ahistorical and is exactly the mentality that has led to the USA leading the developed world in gun deaths, and it isn't remotely a close race. It isn't an argument for the 2nd Amendment, it's the explanation why the 2nd Amendment is killing Americans.

Any source for the second point ?

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah, a right, not a privilege, because the right to bear arms can never be taken from you, under any circumstances.

You say that like it's what I said.

It's not.

Like most rights, it can be restricted if the restriction is upheld by a strict scrutiny review. A lot of gun control laws don't meet that threshold.

[Draco-Onis]

You say that like it's what I said.

It's not.

Like most rights, it can be restricted if the restriction is upheld by a strict scrutiny review. A lot of gun control laws don't meet that threshold.

Correct, most laws written in this century cannot meet the right wing supreme court's standard of legalized slavery colonial England era.

[PhaelixWW]

Correct, most laws written in this century cannot meet the right wing supreme court's standard of legalized slavery colonial England era.

Tell us you don't know what strict scrutiny is without telling us you don't know what strict scrutiny is.