triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Meh at this point I wouldnt be surprised if shes the average weight of women in america.

My view on guns is having guns is fine however there needs to be stricter standards for the inspection and the background check.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

The most extreme way someone can express their 2A is strapping on a bunch of guns with the muzzles pointed down -- and then that becomes borderline 1A.

x_25

Most people seem to skip over the "a well regulated militia" part. This to me says people should have to be trained how to use, operate, and safely store their arms.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Pretty much.

The problem, of course, is that the evangelical open-carry advocates - the ones who parade around with thigh-holsters saying "Look at me, exercising my second-amendment rights!" make all gun-owners look crazy, and do more harm to the second amendment than any liberal politician.



Anyway...



This was supposed to be yesterday's Pearls Before Swine comic, except that it was pulled by the syndicator:

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

There are arguments that "Well Regulated" meant "well trained and equipped" to the founding fathers. I wish we took both parts of the argument seriously in this country, specifically the part about training. If we are to be an armed country, we should be a well trained and disciplined country. That training should at the bare minimum be safety training, followed up by basic use of force when appropriate, and followed by practical application and marksmanship by the time you exit high school. The practical part could be voluntary.

Well, that's MY ideal world at least.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Eh. We can rehash 200 years of debate of what it means, but I think it's pretty clear the phrase establishes why the right to bear arms is necessary, rather than limiting that right to a specific case or instance.

But anyway, it's a straw man to say those you disagree with you are skipping over it. At least allow that they might have a different interpretation of that text.

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

Sure, I get that argument Joe, but let's look at it through another lens:

One could argue that open carry activists are merely following the path laid by gay rights activists... They didn't get anywhere until they were willing to come out of the closet and be exhuberantly gay in public.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Broadly speaking, I would tend to agree with your postulate, within the narrowly defined context of a European-descended and Caucasian-majority nation.

x_25

Never said anything about limiting it. If someone wants to own a gun, fine. But I think that with that responsibility, they should have to have some training on how to safely operate, maintain, store, and shoot it.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Mandatory training is a limitation. You might argue that it's a reasonable limitation, and that's fine, but it's a limitation. It would be like arguing that freedom of speech only applies to those who have graduated from journalism school.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

As far as a well trained militia, there should be affordable government classes for people that use their own guns/ammo. Currently locally the only classes that are available are 500 bucks per class.

The freedom of speech comparison is good however you're trained to speak english from age 1 and think about what you're going to say. Not so much about handling guns though.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Mandatory training is a limitation, yes.

The question, as Chiburbian points out, is whether the "well regulated militia" clause is ALSO a limitation.



No other enumerated right in the Bill of Rights has a qualifying statement in front of it. It doesn't say, for instance, "A well-regulated newspaper being necessary for the information of a free electorate, congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." If it did, then you'd have a reasonable argument that the first amendment applies only to professional news services, and not to individuals.

But it doesn't say that. It just says "free speech, free press." Period. No qualifications, no limitations. How many rights should we give the people when it comes to religion and expression? Hella rights, dawg.



So why does the 2nd Amendment begin by talking about a well-regulated militia?

It doesn't mention sport-hunting, it doesn't mention self-defense, but it DOES qualify the right to keep and bear arms based on the supposition of a well-regulated militia. Because back then, there wasn't much of a standing army. The country was so young and so poor that farmers and carpenters formed the backbone of the defense force. The best analogy today would be the National Guard; a confederation of part-time armies organized at the state level and accountable to the President, made up of volunteers whose primary job is something other than military, but who receive regular military training and participate in maneuvers a few times a year.


Thus, it's not unreasonable to say that the 2nd Amendment applies only to national guardsmen.


Mind you, I'm not personally making that argument, I'm just pointing out that it's one possible interpretation which is supported by the text.








If I could travel back in time to speak with any one person about any one thing, it'd be to the room in which the bill of rights was being written, to ask for clarification about that exact phrase.





I stood in that room about 3 years ago. If you're an American who is reasonably well-versed in the history of the constitution and the founding of the republic, it's a pretty ******* awe-inspiring place to be.



EDIT: pictures I took while there:







Seriously powerful ****.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

that part of the sentence has no bearing whatsoever.

It could read: A purple dinosaur preaching good lessons being necessary to learning "Sharing is Caring", the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

and the right doesn't change.


Plus if one would simply read all the variations of the amendment before it was finally ratified [maybe even a little history behind it as well] they wouldn't agree with you (or that it's about hunting either).

Ill even make it easy for you:

e.g., A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

e.g., A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

Serious question: what exactly do you consider adequate training?

<-- is an NRA Certified Instructor and RSO

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

That's one possible interpretation. There are, of course, others.

Take US v. Miller (1939), in which the Supreme Court ruled that "a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." Very clearly, that indicates that the Second Amendment is limited only to weapons common in militia service.

Or DC v. Heller (2008), that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."


So, two points, really: There clearly ARE limitations on the 2nd, and there exists a substantial body of opinion that the "well regulated militia" clause is meant as a qualifier.

I mean, why else would they put it there? Why does ONLY the 2nd have such a preface? To claim that it is unconnected is basically to presuppose that James Madison was a rambling fool. His own words, in an early proposal of the concept of the Bill of Rights in general: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Lots of talk about military service in there.

hector

If I'm reading it right it is specifically separating owning arms and military service. So I agree with Brain. While a well armed militia is mentioned, arms ownership is not the sole reason for such ownership.

And the Supreme Court ruling from 1939 is clearly a sign of the times. How is a sawed off shotgun not considered a good weapon for a militia in CQB? They may be a Supreme Court but they are humans subjective to political agendas and favors to pay back. Their conclusion is an opinion much like any other person that has one on the matter and the cynic in me doesn't believe it is always done in the blind eye of the law.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

Imagine how different history would be if the U.S. government was not able to draft soldiers.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

To Joe's post, religious exemptions exists exactly for this reason. And to your point, there'd be a lot less dead Americans in Vietnam.

Edit: And I guess Europe would be under the 1000 year riech....

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

more free and in line with our ideals.




100% serious question: why is hillary's speech tonight historic?

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

wow



The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: US Military