Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Wyrt]

The 2nd Amendment establishes that the new federal government cannot deny the individual right to keep and bear arms, full stop. Almost anything beyond that is a "but" or "except" is someone trying to bullshit you. The prefatory states a validation of this -- that free states depend on civilians competent in the use of arms for their security, vis a vis the militia obviously but just as obviously as individuals, since they used the phrase that means an individual right everywhere it appears (right of the people). If anything, the mention of that militia function also makes clear that the type of arms imagined were not any different from what the military might have... which was also an essential basis of the Miller decision.

The 2nd amendment does not specify what arms people have the right to bare so any number of guns can be banned or regulated without violating the 2nd amendment as long as we allow people to get at least some kind of weapon. Could ban all semi-automatic guns and not violate the 2nd amendment.

[Stormdash]

The 2nd amendment does not specify what arms people have the right to bare so any number of guns can be banned or regulated without violating the 2nd amendment as long as we allow people to get at least some kind of weapon. Could ban all semi-automatic guns and not violate the 2nd amendment.

Now do the first and fourth amendment.

[Wyrt]

Now do the first and fourth amendment.

There are already limits on the first amendment, they're called slander and libel.

[Stormdash]

There are already limits on the first amendment, they're called slander and libel.

Actually, slander and libel aren't restrictions on speech, legally speaking, because defamatory words have what is called "independent legal significance", they are a legal act, a la pushing a button or pulling a trigger. Which is also why criminal solicitation or fraud aren't covered by the 1st Amendment.

But your premise about semi-automatic weapons (already broken before it starts, Caetano destroys this line of thinking utterly) would be more akin to arguing that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect communication through broadcast or electronic media of any kind, since they didn't exist in 1791. It would mean that searching the contents of your computer does not require probable cause or a warrant, since they didn't exist and aren't your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" as the language specifies.

But we don't make this mistake -- not because we've "expanded the law", but because we've applied it's original intent to the facts of the day. The internet is protected by the 1st Amendment because it would clearly have been had it existed in 1791. Your smartphone's contents would have been protected by the 4th. And your AR pattern rifle would have been protected by the 2nd (honestly, of the three, the AR represents the least advancement over the technology of the time).

[Wyrt]

Actually, slander and libel aren't restrictions on speech, legally speaking, because defamatory words have what is called "independent legal significance", they are a legal act, a la pushing a button or pulling a trigger. Which is also why criminal solicitation or fraud aren't covered by the 1st Amendment.

But your premise about semi-automatic weapons (already broken before it starts, Caetano destroys this line of thinking utterly) would be more akin to arguing that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect communication through broadcast or electronic media of any kind, since they didn't exist in 1791. It would mean that searching the contents of your computer does not require probable cause or a warrant, since they didn't exist and aren't your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" as the language specifies.

But we don't make this mistake -- not because we've "expanded the law", but because we've applied it's original intent to the facts of the day. The internet is protected by the 1st Amendment because it would clearly have been had it existed in 1791. Your smartphone's contents would have been protected by the 4th. And your AR pattern rifle would have been protected by the 2nd (honestly, of the three, the AR represents the least advancement over the technology of the time).

lol

The intent of the 2nd amendment was for citizens to be ready and armed for being part of militias. So no, the 2nd amendment was not "applied to the facts of the day."

[PhaelixWW]

There are already limits on the first amendment, they're called slander and libel.

Yeah, the limitations are when the use of speech/press are specifically used to damage.

Kinda like the 2nd Amendment has a limitation that prohibits people who are serious criminals (felons) and people who are adjudicated a danger to themself/others from possessing firearms.

But that's not the analogy you'd prefer, right?

[Stormdash]

lol

The intent of the 2nd amendment was for citizens to be ready and armed for being part of militias. So no, the 2nd amendment was not "applied to the facts of the day."

Sure it was -- citizens are still de facto and de jure part of the militia today, both under federal law and the applicable law of the states in which they reside. Y U not know this?

[Adolecent]

Not every person is in good physical shape or strong enough to subdue anyone. This guy was, but why risk that when he could safely just shoot the scum?

That guy is so mentally unstable he almost cried telling the story. Another idiot could also have grabbed a firearm and you would have a shooting where possibly innocent children could be the victims of. oepssss

Worthless video.

No.

[lockedout]

Sure it was -- citizens are still de facto and de jure part of the militia today, both under federal law and the applicable law of the states in which they reside. Y U not know this?

He doesn't want to be a part of it I guess.

[Noradin]

Sure it was -- citizens are still de facto and de jure part of the militia today, both under federal law and the applicable law of the states in which they reside. Y U not know this?

So in case of a war all US citizens are combatants?
There are no civilians?

In that case I guess there aren't any terrorist attacks either (unless some of the victims are foreigners), because the citizens are part of militias and thus legitimate military targets.

Is that what you are telling us?

[Daelak]

So in case of a war all US citizens are combatants?
There are no civilians?

In that case I guess there aren't any terrorist attacks either (unless some of the victims are foreigners), because the citizens are part of militias and thus legitimate military targets.

Is that what you are telling us?

Hes referencing the militia acts of the early 20th century. A law that expanded federal powers to compel state militias 'national guard' of the states to assist the federal government for a temporary period. They can compel people in those states, however they are then trained by the newly created federal militia until it reverts back to the state militia. Hes ignoring historical context and conceding to more federal control over state resources to make his claim of what he thinks the 2nd amendment states.

[Ghostpanther]

lol

The intent of the 2nd amendment was for citizens to be ready and armed for being part of militias. So no, the 2nd amendment was not "applied to the facts of the day."

Not true at all as ruled by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. The 2nd can be used as a means for self defense apart from a militia. And the Supreme Court's ruling matters a hell of a lot more than some MMO poster. :P

- - - Updated - - -

That guy is so mentally unstable he almost cried telling the story. Another idiot could also have grabbed a firearm and you would have a shooting where possibly innocent children could be the victims of. oepssss

Nope. You do not get the authority to declare him mentally unstable. Not in the US. He is looked upon as being a hero. Too bad you do not understand that. You are mainly just spouting off some bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

So in case of a war all US citizens are combatants?
There are no civilians?

In that case I guess there aren't any terrorist attacks either (unless some of the victims are foreigners), because the citizens are part of militias and thus legitimate military targets.

Is that what you are telling us?

You are not that dense. In the case of a invasion or even a terrorist attack, armed civilians could intervene. They have in numerous cases with criminals. Even tho they are not professional soldiers or police officers, but have saved lives. Just as civilians may not be a medical professional or a fireman and yet have saved lives.

[Stormdash]

So in case of a war all US citizens are combatants?
There are no civilians?

In that case I guess there aren't any terrorist attacks either (unless some of the victims are foreigners), because the citizens are part of militias and thus legitimate military targets.

Is that what you are telling us?

Let me answer it two ways --

1) I am telling you that ad hoc civilian militias that can muster under the color of state authority have been part of our law and culture since the beginning, that they were a large part of the fighting force in the Revolution, and that the concept is so engrained that federal law also defines a citizen militia that one is nominally "in" for certain ages just he being alive.

2) this is the entire justification for the selective service system -- we are all playing minor league ball and that is the call up to the majors, so to speak.

[Daelak]

Let me answer it two ways --

1) I am telling you that ad hoc civilian militias that can muster under the color of state authority have been part of our law and culture since the beginning, that they were a large part of the fighting force in the Revolution, and that the concept is so engrained that federal law also defines a citizen militia that one is nominally "in" for certain ages just he being alive.

2) this is the entire justification for the selective service system -- we are all playing minor league ball and that is the call up to the majors, so to speak.

And all militias, since the first shot of the revolutionary war, included a well funded and maintained armory, specifically designed to train civilian soldiers and repel standing armies. You cannot have one without the other, and till this day, all national guards in every state have an armory and is maintained by officers who were trained by the US military. That is all what the 2nd amendment meant, as in plain 18th century English as the 3rd amendment.

The militia acts of the early 20th century expanded federal powers into states militias 'national guard' to compel state resources to assist the federal government for a temporary amount of time. This would give the federal government the ability to train the citizen soldiers if the reserve forces of the state national guard was insufficient.

[Stormdash]

And all militias, since the first shot of the revolutionary war, included a well funded and maintained armory, specifically designed to train civilian soldiers and repel standing armies. You cannot have one without the other, and till this day, all national guards in every state have an armory and is maintained by officers who were trained by the US military. That is all what the 2nd amendment meant, as in plain 18th century English as the 3rd amendment.

Best kept secret of the 18th century -- the special meaning of the 2nd Amendment that nobody who was involved in any way in drafting or ratifying wrote a single word about that has survived. Words about the civilian ownership of firearms, we have pouring over us like water in that set piece in Inception, but no, no, no, the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could not possibly mean that government can't deny people the ownership and use of firearms.

Incidentally, clinging to the counter-factual, anti-historical and vaguely English illiterate interpretation that folk like Daelak still insist has hold is a huge, HUGE obstacle to actually finding common ground on the modern day legal fine points of gun ownership -- because you can't compromise with someone who fundamentally intends to get every last drop from you, even if they have to do it in steps. You can't give them anything. It's a much larger scale self-defeating posture of the gun control crowd, like the NJ poison pill law that stands as a permanent obstacle to anyone ever trying to do anything with "smart gun" technology (for those that don't know, NJ has an ill-conceived law that says that as soon as any "smart" gun is available for sale in the US, anywhere, it triggers a mandate that within 30 months all handguns for sale in NJ must be "smart" guns. This has had the obvious foreseeable effect of stifling R&D into the concept. But at least NJ lawmakers Did Something, right? It's about feeling validated). If the gun control lobby in the US (which spends much, much more on politics than the pro-gun lobby, contrary to popular myth) could just submit on the basic premise of the fundamental right of individual gun ownership, that it's not about hunting, that it's not only if the government calls you up to the military, they could get a lot more productive conversation on their general list of "wants".

[Daelak]

Best kept secret of the 18th century -- the special meaning of the 2nd Amendment that nobody who was involved in any way in drafting or ratifying wrote a single word about that has survived. Words about the civilian ownership of firearms, we have pouring over us like water in that set piece in Inception, but no, no, no, the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could not possibly mean that government can't deny people the ownership and use of firearms.

Incidentally, clinging to the counter-factual, anti-historical and vaguely English illiterate interpretation that folk like Daelak still insist has hold is a huge, HUGE obstacle to actually finding common ground on the modern day legal fine points of gun ownership -- because you can't compromise with someone who fundamentally intends to get every last drop from you, even if they have to do it in steps. You can't give them anything. It's a much larger scale self-defeating posture of the gun control crowd, like the NJ poison pill law that stands as a permanent obstacle to anyone ever trying to do anything with "smart gun" technology (for those that don't know, NJ has an ill-conceived law that says that as soon as any "smart" gun is available for sale in the US, anywhere, it triggers a mandate that within 30 months all handguns for sale in NJ must be "smart" guns. This has had the obvious foreseeable effect of stifling R&D into the concept. But at least NJ lawmakers Did Something, right? It's about feeling validated). If the gun control lobby in the US (which spends much, much more on politics than the pro-gun lobby, contrary to popular myth) could just submit on the basic premise of the fundamental right of individual gun ownership, that it's not about hunting, that it's not only if the government calls you up to the military, they could get a lot more productive conversation on their general list of "wants".

Its no secret, it's been a precedent of all state militias now coined as 'national guard' units in all 50 states. Here's a list of the armories in your state of Florida. You should drive by them sometime, to get some real world historical context of why these even exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_National_Guard

[Deleted]

imo ppl should have choice with guns

[Stormdash]

Its no secret, it's been a precedent of all state militias now coined as 'national guard' units in all 50 states. Here's a list of the armories in your state of Florida. You should drive by them sometime, to get some real world historical context of why these even exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_National_Guard

Why do you suppose that there isn't a single surviving writing that talks about the 2nd Amendment as though it means what you wish it did, and only those that contradict your interpretation? That the exclusive weight of the historical record of the drafting/ratification of the 2nd Amendment supports that it protected individual ownership of firearms?

Blythe, Buffalo Bill-like repetition that organized militias also exist and that they keep their own weapons in an armory doesn't actually help you since those facts in no way disprove the intended individual liberty. What might would be actual words by those involved in the Amendment being enshrined in law implying that they didn't intend it to apply to individual citizens... but of such words, there are none.

[Adolecent]

Nope. You do not get the authority to declare him mentally unstable. Not in the US. He is looked upon as being a hero. Too bad you do not understand that. You are mainly just spouting off some bullshit.

Useless since he wouldn't get any treatment anyhow in the US.

And you call someone a hero pretty fast for something normal as helping a police-officer in distress.

[Ghostpanther]

Useless since he wouldn't get any treatment anyhow in the US.

And you call someone a hero pretty fast for something normal as helping a police-officer in distress.

He could get help. Odds are he did not want to. Makes no difference in this case, because he had enough mental capacity to know if he did not stop beating the officer, he would be shot. I would say he is a hero to the cop and those who look at it differently than you do.