Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[GrandKirche]

Why not just enforce it as written? You have weapons if you're in a militia. Not if you're just a random person who always wanted a submachine gun.

[Big Jim P]

Why not just enforce it as written? You have weapons if you're in a militia. Not if you're just a random person who always wanted a submachine gun.

Sounds good. The militia was every able-bodied adult when it was written.

[Hladgos]

Why not just enforce it as written? You have weapons if you're in a militia. Not if you're just a random person who always wanted a submachine gun.

Sounds good. The militia was every able-bodied adult when it was written.

*white landowner

[Spirit of Hope]

Sounds good. The militia was every able-bodied adult when it was written.

*white landowner

Every able bodied white male was allowed to be a member of the militia, landowning was a requirement for voting not militia service.

Also the 2nd Amendment says:

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.

So the people should have the right to keep and carry weapons.

[Wombocombo]

Sounds good. The militia was every able-bodied adult when it was written.

*white landowner

From my limited knowledge of history there were some blacks.
Though I'm pretty sure they were following their masters or something.
Okay nevermind, lets just go back to the white landowner thing.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Hunting with paintball guns? This is a joke, yes?

Actual bullets might kill the animals.

Yes, and? Do you understand the objective of hunting? And, so, what we are just to leave a bunch of wounded dear running around?

[New Tsavon]

Sounds good. The militia was every able-bodied adult when it was written.

*white landowner :p

More like every able-bodied man between 18 and 45.

[Arcanda]

It says militia, but a well-regulated one.Hence gun laws.Hence the regulations.

[Imperializt Russia]

It says militia, but a well-regulated one.Hence gun laws.Hence the regulations.

The meaning of "well-regulated" is still subject to debate, since the meaning of words change.
"Comfort", for example, used to mean "encourage", not console.

The Bayeux Tapestry features a segment titled "Harold comforts his troops", and it appears to show him practising proctology with a polearm on his own men.

[Grinning Dragon]

It says militia, but a well-regulated one.Hence gun laws.Hence the regulations.

Try "in working order"

[Eboestrana]

I can't believe anyone would want to repeal the second amendment.

If you outlaw guns, then, logically, only outlaws will have guns. It's not a matter of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. If someone wants to rob a bank, chances are they're not gonna be too concerned about the legality of assault rifles.

Should guns be regulated? Hell yeah! Should guns be banned? NO.

Keep guns in the hands of mentally competent, intelligent people who aren't exactly likely to be shooting up the local booze store and we won't have any problems.

[Grave_n_idle]

*white landowner

Every able bodied white male was allowed to be a member of the militia, landowning was a requirement for voting not militia service.

Also the 2nd Amendment says:

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.

So the people should have the right to keep and carry weapons.

Well, yes and no... theoretically, if you're not white, you're not eligible to carry firearms. Or if you're 46, for example. The vagueness of the wording of the second amendment was pretty much immediately addressed by militia act(s). Which also described what 'regulated' implied.

[American California]

Hell no.

But the current gun laws need some revision. Non-citizens, felons, youth, and the mentally unstable should be barred from owning guns, and gun safety and competency tests should be mandatory every five years for all gun owners.

[American California]

Sounds good. The militia was every able-bodied adult when it was written.

*white landowner

Even better

[Spirit of Hope]

Every able bodied white male was allowed to be a member of the militia, landowning was a requirement for voting not militia service.

Also the 2nd Amendment says:


So the people should have the right to keep and carry weapons.

Well, yes and no... theoretically, if you're not white, you're not eligible to carry firearms. Or if you're 46, for example. The vagueness of the wording of the second amendment was pretty much immediately addressed by militia act(s). Which also described what 'regulated' implied.

The thing is the militia bit isn't the point of the amendment. The bit saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is the point. So all people have the right to keep and bear arms.

[Kernen]

Well, yes and no... theoretically, if you're not white, you're not eligible to carry firearms. Or if you're 46, for example. The vagueness of the wording of the second amendment was pretty much immediately addressed by militia act(s). Which also described what 'regulated' implied.

The thing is the militia bit isn't the point of the amendment. The bit saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is the point. So all people have the right to keep and bear arms.

It's all irrelevant. The SCOTUS already declared that 2A applies to private citizens, not just in a militia.

[Imperializt Russia]

The thing is the militia bit isn't the point of the amendment. The bit saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is the point. So all people have the right to keep and bear arms.

It's all irrelevant. The SCOTUS already declared that 2A applies to private citizens, not just in a militia.

The militia included almost all private citizens anyway (at least 1/3 the population by current life expectancies, likely nearer 2/3 in the time of the Bill of Rights).

[New Baldonia]

Hell no.

But the current gun laws need some revision. Non-citizens, felons, youth, and the mentally unstable should be barred from owning guns, and gun safety and competency tests should be mandatory every five years for all gun owners.

Non-citizens are already not allowed to purchase firearms. Felons are also not allowed to purchase firearms (though some states allow them to keep firearms they owned prior to conviction, however this contradicts US law, so there's no guarantee what will happen to your guns if you commit a felony). Anyone under the age of 18 is not allowed to purchase a firearm (and no one under 21 can purchase a handgun), although some states allow them to be gifted firearms, but that exception usually has an age limit on it (ex. you must be over 16). Most people classified as mentally unstable are too, not allowed to purchase firearms. Most states even say that firearms owned prior to them being determined unstable are to be taken away, and most of those same states won't even allow a firearm to be in the same house as them (or within a certain distance from their home even, ie: a 50 foot radius). These are all laws that have existed since at least the mid 90's, but in more cases than not, even longer than that.

Most of the issues that people have with Americas gun laws, are non existent. The second amendment is already heavily restricted, and in reality most of those restrictions should be repealed. Like the NFA for instance, a completely pointless law that did absolutely nothing to crime rates. Instead it just made full-auto guns extremely expensive (we're talking 6,000 for the absolute cheapest, most beat up and inaccurate Mac-10), so that only the richest can afford it. Unlike cars, few banks will give you a loan to pay for a gun, so you'll need that 10-15+ grand up front in cash. Plus, the guns it restricted (full auto guns) have only be responsible for two murders since 1934. source

let me repeat that, two murders since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer.

[Narland]

Why not just enforce it as written? You have weapons if you're in a militia. Not if you're just a random person who always wanted a submachine gun.

We do, it is called a county armory, and therein is where the munitions, tanks, and rpgs are held for the citizenry. Of course most states have siliently disbanded their county armories since congress repealed Posse Commitatus so it is up to your State to uphold it either through State Guard or the County Sheriff's department.

[Sevvania]

Instead it just made full-auto guns extremely expensive (we're talking 6,000 for the absolute cheapest, most beat up and inaccurate Mac-10), so that only the richest can afford it. Unlike cars, few banks will give you a loan to pay for a gun, so you'll need that 10-15+ grand up front in cash. Plus, the guns it restricted (full auto guns) have only be responsible for two murders since 1934. source

let me repeat that, two murders since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer.

But to be fair, this is probably because full-autos weren't super common to begin with, so with the price increase and the added red tape, they weren't able to proliferate to the same degree as, say, semi-automatics, which have been available to the general civilian population for the last hundred years or so and have become much more commonplace.

[New Baldonia]

Instead it just made full-auto guns extremely expensive (we're talking 6,000 for the absolute cheapest, most beat up and inaccurate Mac-10), so that only the richest can afford it. Unlike cars, few banks will give you a loan to pay for a gun, so you'll need that 10-15+ grand up front in cash. Plus, the guns it restricted (full auto guns) have only be responsible for two murders since 1934. source

let me repeat that, two murders since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer.

But to be fair, this is probably because full-autos weren't super common to begin with, so with the price increase and the added red tape, they weren't able to proliferate to the same degree as, say, semi-automatics, which have been available to the general civilian population for the last hundred years or so and have become much more commonplace.

I just realized I put NFA (national firearms act) instead of FOPA (firearm owners protection act).

FOPA didn't actually affect ownership of them at all, the increase in price is due to the high demand of those types of firearms post-ban. They were considered expensive then too, but that's because guns in general were worth far less then. My father likes to talk about when he could go down to his local gun store and pick up a new rifle from the "$50 or less" barrel every few weeks. Guns that he used to give away to friends are worth $500-600 or more now. The kicker is that this was during the late 70's, early 80's, so inflation's not really that much of a factor. The price of a full-auto AR platform rifle would cost about the same as a semi-auto variant of that same gun does today.
What FOPA actually did, was make the import and manufacture of full-autos illegal. So any full-auto guns in the US before 1984 (when it was passed) are still perfectly legal and can be sold, bought, and traded just as with any gun (though with a $200 tax stamp as per "National Firearms Act" regulations). You just cant import a full auto FN-FAL from France, or buy a brand new full-auto M16/M4 sear to put in your AR-15 (unless your a cop). Full-autos make up about 9% of the total number of firearms in the US as of today(assuming 270 million total, the lower end of the estimated number since there's no real way to tell exactly how many there are). in 1984 I'd say (this is a guess), that number was closer to 20-15%. So yeah, I guess they're not exactly common.
In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime.) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)
But my issue is that the 2nd amendment is in place to keep the government from having a monopoly on force. And FOPA just put them that much closer to being able to outgun us and push us around. And before you ask, yes I do think that civilians should be able to own tanks, jets, and aircraft carriers. Two of those things have legitimate non-military applications, and the other is just because it'd be fun. But then again none of those things are illegal to own anyways.

The NFA on the other hand just put a $200 tax stamp on certain weapons. This isn't really that big of a deal and I dont care too much if its repealed or not. However in 1934 when this was passed, $200 is the equivalent to $3,488.16 today (Having a national bank is a bitch ain't it?).

[MERIZoC]

It says militia, but a well-regulated one.Hence gun laws.Hence the regulations.

The meaning of "well-regulated" is still subject to debate, since the meaning of words change.
"Comfort", for example, used to mean "encourage", not console.

The Bayeux Tapestry features a segment titled "Harold comforts his troops", and it appears to show him practising proctology with a polearm on his own men.

Is there evidence that the word "regulated" changed that much over time?

[Sevvania]

Is there evidence that the word "regulated" changed that much over time?

"Well-regulated" seems pretty subjective and open to interpretation in either case.

[Abidawe]

No, restricting the possession of weapons means that only the criminals will have weapons, it would give them an advantage as we'd have one less way to defend ourselves. There's this thing called the black market and they don't pay any attention to whats legal and whats not.

Repealing or reforming the second amendment is like throwing a white flag at the feet of law-abiding citizens and saying "wave that around and maybe that'll keep them from shooting." It will not work no matter how much the anti-gun activists think it will. We should loosen some of the laws if we change it so the good citizens of America are more freely and legally able to protect themselves from harm. Yes ARs are definitely a bit unnecessary for a citizen to be carrying but majorly concealed weapons could be the difference between an innocent citizen being killed and a murder being taken down for good.

Thats just my opinion but I personally believe that there are others out there that agree with me

[Sevvania]

Yes ARs are definitely a bit unnecessary for a citizen to be carrying but majorly concealed weapons could be the difference between an innocent citizen being killed and a murder being taken down for good.

If by "AR" you mean "assault rifle," as in a rifle that is capable of fully-automatic fire, these are already pretty heavily regulated and account for very little crime. If by "AR" you mean a member of the semi-automatic AR-15 family of rifles, these are no more "uneccessary" than any other semi-automatic rifle, and account for less than half as many deaths as fists and feet.