Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Daelak]

Make up your mind, two posts up you claimed that the 2nd was originaly meant to prevent federal state and teritorial governments with militia, now its only federal government? Just admit you bs and move on. The idea that 2nd was meant to protect a right to collectively form militias is nonsence.

I never changed my mind; the 2nd amendment was a restriction on any and all governments that would hypothetically create restrictions and regulations of citizens assembling a community militia. Since the passage of the militia act of 1903 and the ones following, the relevancy of the 2nd is akin to the 3rd; an artifact of post-revolution United States, a remnant of how the revolutionary forces defeated the Royal British Military.

The hilarity of saying that even though that is literally the words of the 2nd amendment.

[Zoranon]

I never changed my mind; the 2nd amendment was a restriction on any and all governments that would hypothetically create restrictions and regulations of citizens assembling a community militia. Since the passage of the militia act of 1903 and the ones following, the relevancy of the 2nd is akin to the 3rd; an artifact of post-revolution United States, a remnant of how the revolutionary forces defeated the Royal British Military.

The hilarity of saying that even though that is literally the words of the 2nd amendment.

Your position is just hillarious. Not only you claim that the 2nd is the only BoR ammendement protecting a group right, but it is also the only ammendement that was incorporated from the begining. That is just nonsence.

Honestly I cant decide which is the bigger bs. Claims by people like you that 2nd protects militias and claims by other hoplophobes that 2nd protects only founding era weaponry.

[Daelak]

Your position is just hillarious. Not only you claim that the 2nd is the only BoR ammendement protecting a group right, but it is also the only ammendement that was incorporated from the begining. That is just nonsence.

Honestly I cant decide which is the bigger bs. Claims by people like you that 2nd protects militias and claims by other hoplophobes that 2nd protects only founding era weaponry.

It wasn't just incorporated; the existence of well regulated militias existed prior to the ratification of the document; without the language of the 2nd amendment in there, states wouldn't have adopted it, since it was a universally applauded military strategy to fight against any rich monarchy at the time.

It isn't bullshit; the words are literally there in the 2nd amendment explicitly stating exactly that.

[Kodaline]

You seem hell bent on saying "in order for a militia", "in order for a militia", "in order for a militia" because you then try to say that there is some act that nullifies it from 1903 and thus renders the whole thing void. It's both a red herring and a straw man, for reasons I will now show.

1. It's a red herring because the Militia Act of 1903 did in fact restructure the national guard, but left alone the right of the people to assemble into a militia of their own, which was referred to as an unorganized militia. You should always link things that you cite, because it enforces the habit of actually checking to see if you are wrong, which you are here.

2. It's a straw man because of many, many, many reasons. Everything from state constitutions, to letters, to the Federalist papers affirm the God-given right of being armed to the people for no other reason than it is your right as a tool-using human being to be able to use arms for defense. The very same people that wrote the Constitution are on record multiple times saying that there need be no reason for the right, it simply is, and the Amendment restricts the government from ever infringing upon it. Another reason is sentence structure "In order [SUBORDINATE CLAUSE], the right of the [INDEPENDENT CLAUSE.]" In English, which is what we speak and what the document was written in, it does not matter what a subordinate clause does, it simply provides information. Chop it off to understand the root command. This is not negotiable. Lastly, as multiple people have noted, the Bill of Rights is for the individual. It is not "individual right, only a right for a sate sanctioned group of people, individual right, individual right, individual right."

Also, you need to understand, and I know this is hard for a statist, that 99.9% of the time that the government restricts a person, it is wrong. I own guns. I use them. There are already laws against the illegal use of guns. We don't need more. There is only one reason to outlaw guns when illegal behavior with guns is already outlawed, and that is to make it easier to oppress the citizens. We already get oppressed enough by the goddamn social justice warriors and their agendas, taxing us to death, making us pay for stupid programs, taking men's children away and his house too, and all sorts of other stuff that needs its own topic.

Lastly, the very reason you protest against the 2nd Amendment is the reason we have it. I will not follow your vision of society. Ever. I have my own, and the first person that wants to disarm me will have a very bad day.

[Daelak]

You seem hell bent on saying "in order for a militia", "in order for a militia", "in order for a militia" because you then try to say that there is some act that nullifies it from 1903 and thus renders the whole thing void. It's both a red herring and a straw man, for reasons I will now show.

1. It's a red herring because the Militia Act of 1903 did in fact restructure the national guard, but left alone the right of the people to assemble into a militia of their own, which was referred to as an unorganized militia. You should always link things that you cite, because it enforces the habit of actually checking to see if you are wrong, which you are here.

No, the militia act of 1903 and the following put any well-regulated militia, aka state national guard, under federal control at the whim of the federal military. The 2nd amendment says nothing of an unregulated or an unorganized militia, but only of a well-regulated one. So the militia acts are superseding the protections afforded to the people in forming their own in the 2nd amendment.

2. It's a straw man because of many, many, many reasons. Everything from state constitutions, to letters, to the Federalist papers affirm the God-given right of being armed to the people for no other reason than it is your right as a tool-using human being to be able to use arms for defense. The very same people that wrote the Constitution are on record multiple times saying that there need be no reason for the right, it simply is, and the Amendment restricts the government from ever infringing upon it. Another reason is sentence structure "In order [SUBORDINATE CLAUSE], the right of the [INDEPENDENT CLAUSE.]" In English, which is what we speak and what the document was written in, it does not matter what a subordinate clause does, it simply provides information. Chop it off to understand the root command. This is not negotiable. Lastly, as multiple people have noted, the Bill of Rights is for the individual. It is not "individual right, only a right for a sate sanctioned group of people, individual right, individual right, individual right."

And yet you have no support in the actual ratification document itself. Like I have told you before; the creation and maintenance of a local militia, which included armories and veteran officers regularly training the men in the militia, were what won the revolutionary war. The term "bearing arms" was a colloquial way of fighting against a common enemy; to muster up a force and fight them, a phrase that pre-dates the existence of firearms themselves.

It's a simple statement which protects the rights of citizens to assemble, much like the 1st protecting citizens when assembling to redress grievances to the government, however the 2nd deals with the assemblage of a community militia, maintained by veterans, to ensure regular proper training and readiness (well- regulated.

Also, you need to understand, and I know this is hard for a statist, that 99.9% of the time that the government restricts a person, it is wrong. I own guns. I use them. There are already laws against the illegal use of guns. We don't need more. There is only one reason to outlaw guns when illegal behavior with guns is already outlawed, and that is to make it easier to oppress the citizens. We already get oppressed enough by the goddamn social justice warriors and their agendas, taxing us to death, making us pay for stupid programs, taking men's children away and his house too, and all sorts of other stuff that needs its own topic.

Lastly, the very reason you protest against the 2nd Amendment is the reason we have it. I will not follow your vision of society. Ever. I have my own, and the first person that wants to disarm me will have a very bad day.

I am not "protesting" against the 2nd amendment, I am showing you and others why it's not even applicable to any discussion in the modern day, especially since the militia acts. Laws restricting or loosening firearm uses, production, etc. should have to stand on their own, not use a perverse and incomplete interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which obviously was written to protect community militias from a potential tyrannical government.

[Kodaline]

I just read the 1903 legislation man, you are wrong. So far, you are wrong on everything. At least you are consistent.

[Zoranon]

It wasn't just incorporated; the existence of well regulated militias existed prior to the ratification of the document; without the language of the 2nd amendment in there, states wouldn't have adopted it, since it was a universally applauded military strategy to fight against any rich monarchy at the time.

It isn't bullshit; the words are literally there in the 2nd amendment explicitly stating exactly that.

So states would not have adopted the constitution without an ammendement that was incorporated against them? Not to mention that all states did ratify the constitution without the BoR, as you would have known had you actually had any knowledge about the constitution...

And in case you havent noticed that yet, all of BoR deals with rights that existed before the constitution was written...

[Daelak]

I just read the 1903 legislation man, you are wrong. So far, you are wrong on everything. At least you are consistent.

Then you need to re-read it. Federal control over militias in every state, since the militias before then were known to be insubordinate and were far from the readiness levels that the federal military maintained.

- - - Updated - - -

So states would not have adopted the constitution without an ammendement that was incorporated against them? Not to mention that all states did ratify the constitution without the BoR, as you would have known had you actually had any knowledge about the constitution...

And in case you havent noticed that yet, all of BoR deals with rights that existed before the constitution was written...

Again, the BoR were restrictions on the federal government, not on citizens. A hypothetical case of where a state restricted the assemblage of a well regulated militia after ratification would immediately trigger a 2nd amendment defense, one that any court at the time would of struck down, due to the clear language of the amendment. Luckily for post-revolution citizens, all states knew the immense power well regulated militias had in defense, so there were no challenges to the minted 2nd amendment.

[Zoranon]

Again, the BoR were restrictions on the federal government, not on citizens. A hypothetical case of where a state restricted the assemblage of a well regulated militia after ratification would immediately trigger a 2nd amendment defense, one that any court at the time would of struck down, due to the clear language of the amendment. Luckily for post-revolution citizens, all states knew the immense power well regulated militias had in defense, so there were no challenges to the minted 2nd amendment.

Ok I am getting bored now, you keep saying things that are simply wrong. Until after the civil war no part of the federal BoR was considered to be binding on the states. And for your information, all of the original states ratified the constitution without the 2nd ammendement existing.

[Stormdash]

Where did he say he wanted to take their guns away from them? He only said that he didn't want them on his property. The same thing I - and every other CCW carrier - have to honor when private property owners post no firearms signs.

He isn't anti Second Amendment but pro private property rights.

Indeed. I am as pro 2A as anyone I've ever met or heard of, but I'll accept that a property owner can tell me I can't carry on their property, because... their property.

[Daelak]

Ok I am getting bored now, you keep saying things that are simply wrong. Until after the civil war no part of the federal BoR was considered to be binding on the states. And for your information, all of the original states ratified the constitution without the 2nd ammendement existing.

So you are saying that the states would of restricted and regulated the creation of militias, and the citizens of those states wouldn't have used a 2nd amendment defense to keep their right to assemble a well regulated militia? Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about; that the existence of the 2nd amendment is to protect citizens from the government restricting their right to assemble a well regulated militia.

[Zoranon]

So you are saying that the states would of restricted and regulated the creation of militias, and the citizens of those states wouldn't have used a 2nd amendment defense to keep their right to assemble a well regulated militia? Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about; that the existence of the 2nd amendment is to protect citizens from the government restricting their right to assemble a well regulated militia.

Since 2nd does not deal with duty to serve in militia, your whole post is a giant red herring. Rights and duties are not the same thing you know.

For the last time, BoR protects individual rights, so there is no reason why 2nd would be the only exception.

PS: The world regulated had a different meaning in late 18th century.

[Daelak]

Since 2nd does not deal with duty to serve in militia, your whole post is a giant red herring. Rights and duties are not the same thing you know.

For the last time, BoR protects individual rights, so there is no reason why 2nd would be the only exception.

PS: The world regulated had a different meaning in late 18th century.

The 2nd wholly deals with protecting citizen's right to assemble a well regulated militia.

There is no exception, it's straightforward in its language; no government shall infringe on the rights of citizens to assemble a well regulated militia.

Regulated in the 18th century meant regularly trained, with combat fatigues, and a well stocked armory.

[zenkai]

Since 2nd does not deal with duty to serve in militia, your whole post is a giant red herring. Rights and duties are not the same thing you know.

For the last time, BoR protects individual rights, so there is no reason why 2nd would be the only exception.

PS: The world regulated had a different meaning in late 18th century.

Even though he's always wrong, you have to give him points for sticking to his guns.

[Machismo]

I enjoy watching people who want to ban immigrants who start to whine when people want to ban firearms, and vice versa. There is so much hypocrisy when it comes to political issues. Of course, they would call it "nuance."

[Kodaline]

The 2nd wholly deals with protecting citizen's right to assemble a well regulated militia.

There is no exception, it's straightforward in its language; no government shall infringe on the rights of citizens to assemble a well regulated militia.

Regulated in the 18th century meant regularly trained, with combat fatigues, and a well stocked armory.

Ah, here is something where I can pinpoint you being wrong. The Second Amendment does NOT say what you said.

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.

Daelak: The government shall not infringe on the right of the people to assemble a militia.
Constitution: The government shall not infringe on the right of the people to bear arms, in order to have a militia.

You are SO DESPERATE to get us to agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the formation of a militia only because then you will claim that the 1903 Act eliminates the militia and thus the amendment. Both of those statements are wrong; the 1903 Act because you haven't read it, and your original argument which conflates the REASON FOR something as the SOMETHING ITSELF. The right to have a militia is not protected, the right to have guns is. If you have guns, you don't need to have the right to a militia protected, because you simply grab your gun, walk outside, stand next to your neighbor, and, bam, you're a militia.

https://archive.org/stream/jstor-251...19439_djvu.txt

The 1903 Act.

[Mrbleedinggums]

I wish there was just a way of taxing every gun owner every time one of their kind ends up shooting a school or church or club. Another school shooting and that gun was "legally" bought? 1,000$ fine per student killed, 500$ per student injured. It was a semi-auto or high clip? 2,500$ per student killed, 1,500$ per student injured. Mandatory psychological screening for a gun permit and minimum of 100 hours of training. You want to be able to have no restrictions to the guns you want? Congrats, you get to pay for it. It's ridiculous that our current clown in office removed the restrictions for mentally unstable to have access to guns. Nothing like giving Old Lady Barker with Schizo down the street the right to wave that shotgun on her porch.

[Zoranon]

Even though he's always wrong, you have to give him points for sticking to his guns.

Heh indeed, well I at least got one answer. I wondered why he was on my ignore list and now I know the reason.

- - - Updated - - -

I wish there was just a way of taxing every gun owner every time one of their kind ends up shooting a school or church or club. Another school shooting and that gun was "legally" bought? 1,000$ fine per student killed, 500$ per student injured. It was a semi-auto or high clip? 2,500$ per student killed, 1,500$ per student injured. Mandatory psychological screening for a gun permit and minimum of 100 hours of training. You want to be able to have no restrictions to the guns you want? Congrats, you get to pay for it. It's ridiculous that our current clown in office removed the restrictions for mentally unstable to have access to guns. Nothing like giving Old Lady Barker with Schizo down the street the right to wave that shotgun on her porch.

Thankfully, nobody cares what you want. "Shall not be infrigned" is clear enough.

[Daelak]

Ah, here is something where I can pinpoint you being wrong. The Second Amendment does NOT say what you said.



Daelak: The government shall not infringe on the right of the people to assemble a militia.
Constitution: The government shall not infringe on the right of the people to bear arms, in order to have a militia.

You are SO DESPERATE to get us to agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the formation of a militia only because then you will claim that the 1903 Act eliminates the militia and thus the amendment. Both of those statements are wrong; the 1903 Act because you haven't read it, and your original argument which conflates the REASON FOR something as the SOMETHING ITSELF. The right to have a militia is not protected, the right to have guns is. If you have guns, you don't need to have the right to a militia protected, because you simply grab your gun, walk outside, stand next to your neighbor, and, bam, you're a militia.

https://archive.org/stream/jstor-251...19439_djvu.txt

The 1903 Act.

It isn't desperation, it's the plain language in the 2nd amendment. It's literally the reason how revolutionaries beat a global superpower; they had armories in their communities that were funded by wealthy landowners in lieu of serving in the militia. The armories stored ammunition, arms, combat fatigues, and had veteran soldiers of wars before the revolution regularly training the men of the community to fight. The armories acted as both a rallying point for the community and as strongholds to outlast the British. This encompassed the "well regulated" portion of the amendment, since most if not all of the founding fathers and writers of the BoR were a part of this exact military strategy, they knew of a well regulated militias critical importance, and that's why it is an unfettered right for citizens to assemble one in their community.

And again, nowhere in the amendment does it say anything of the sort. It is completely centered around citizens' unfettered right to assemble a well regulated militia in their community to fight against an enemy. Grabbing your rifle and standing next to your neighbor, with no combat readiness training, no reserve of ammunition, fatigues, and larger arms isn't a well regulated militia; in fact the founders at that time wouldn't have called it a militia at all, more likely a roving band of thugs with no respect to training and protecting their community, more of a liability than a force that would repel a superior military.

The militia acts was a consequence of a culmination of errors, belligerence, and insufficient combat readiness training of militias during the 19th century, which showed how glaringly unprepared they were when compared to the newly minted federal military. The acts effectively neutered the 2nd amendments purpose; usurping the responsibility of maintaining a community militia from citizens to federal military bureaucracy.

- - - Updated - - -

Heh indeed, well I at least got one answer. I wondered why he was on my ignore list and now I know the reason.

Who would of guessed a conservative needing to safe space himself from people he couldn't effectively debate on merits alone. Don't worry, you aren't alone, conservatives are cowards.

[Mrbleedinggums]

Heh indeed, well I at least got one answer. I wondered why he was on my ignore list and now I know the reason.

- - - Updated - - -



Thankfully, nobody cares what you want. "Shall not be infrigned" is clear enough.

I'm sure the dead children that you happily enjoy wanted some gun control. Shame you aren't forced to look at each of their corpses every time another gun nut wants to shoot up innocents.

Why is it that the inept think that laws that were created hundreds of years ago are absolutely forbidden from being updated to justify the times we live in? Our founding fathers didn't exactly have access to knowing atomic bombs, tanks, and drones would be created. Their guns were muskets that you had to manually reload every time. Not Rambo machines with clips holding 20+ bullets and quick reload to be able to kill as many as your blessed heart pleases.