Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Sanctissima]

Gun rights in general, I understand.

Gun rights that involve semi-automatic and automatic weapons, I don't.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes, but the whole point I was going on about, was that the entire gun culture creates an opposition to state authority. Which can be dangerous.

Unopposed and unquestioned state authority is dangerous.

I agree. Very dangerous and one that I would not want to be a part of nor live under. Not to mention that those same very unopposed/unquestioned govts have had a propensity to slaughter/enslave its people that dare ask just one question.

[Grinning Dragon]

Gun rights in general, I understand.

Gun rights that involve semi-automatic and automatic weapons, I don't.

Why? To me that is like saying, free speech rights I understand, free speech rights that involve print/broadcasted and libraries, I don't

[Washington Resistance Army]

Gun rights in general, I understand.

Gun rights that involve semi-automatic and automatic weapons, I don't.

Does no one know most civilian weapons are semi-automatic? Like really, should we all just have Glorious Bolt Actions? All semi-auto means is one bullet is fired when you pull the trigger.

[Grinning Dragon]

Gun rights in general, I understand.

Gun rights that involve semi-automatic and automatic weapons, I don't.

Does no one know most civilian weapons are semi-automatic? Like really, should we all just have Glorious Bolt Actions? All semi-auto means is one bullet is fired when you pull the trigger.

Well to be fair, he did mention SA and FA weapons.
Guess he didn't get the memo that SA weapons are pretty much the go to standard in firearms today.

[Diopolis]

On my farm we hunt hogs and get tasty bacon as a result

Going to be doing the same in Texas. w00t!

It's much more tender than the stuff you get in the store.

[Big Jim P]

Gun rights in general, I understand.

Gun rights that involve semi-automatic and automatic weapons, I don't.

Semi-autos are no more deadly than any other type. Nor or full-autos (without proper training).

[Diopolis]

Gun rights in general, I understand.

Gun rights that involve semi-automatic and automatic weapons, I don't.

And I've never understood the idea that the kind of weapon is somehow more important than the person using it, with a few obvious exceptions(for example, chemical and radioactive weapons just shouldn't be used).

[Gun Manufacturers]

Hunting for food DOES have a net benefit. It gives the hunter and family meat for the table, and helps keep the wild animal population in check (which helps the with the health of the rest of the herd, helps prevent auto accidents, helps prevent the spread of diseases like Lyme disease, and helps prevent property damage) .

It does not give a net benefit.

The killing of the animal vastly outweighs the eating of the meat (which isn't even necessary in this day and age).

So, you're fine with animals starving, or dying of disease and auto accidents, due to overpopulation?

I'm not. While I don't hunt myself (maybe someday), I do happen to see the benefits of hunting.

[Sanctissima]

Gun rights in general, I understand.

Gun rights that involve semi-automatic and automatic weapons, I don't.

Semi-autos are no more deadly than any other type. Nor or full-autos (without proper training).

Semi-autos, I suppose are pretty common and not terribly deadly.

But I still don't understand what the reasoning behind civilians using full-autos is. I mean, it just seems like more potential harm than possible good.

[Big Jim P]

Semi-autos are no more deadly than any other type. Nor or full-autos (without proper training).

Semi-autos, I suppose are pretty common and not terribly deadly.

But I still don't understand what the reasoning behind civilians using full-autos is. I mean, it just seems like more potential harm than possible good.

Something that hasn't proven out in practice. Two murders since 1934.

[Haktiva]

People hardly seem to understand it as it is, at least the so-called "leaders" in government.

Gun control works, just ask Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

If we were to follow the second amendment in the way it is written, personal gun ownership is illegal. It states, and most probably know already, "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." This means that gun ownership is offered to citizens who actively volunteer in functional, local militias. I hardly think that separate individuals with semi-auto rifles constitute as a militia. So, technically, repealing the second amendment wouldn't do anything because personal gun ownership was unconstitutional to begin with. We might as well repeal it, because it doesn't apply to a modern society - we don't need militias when we have the most kickass military on the planet. But another amendment should set in place clear boundaries on gun ownership and the beloved right to bear arms.

[Bosiu]

People hardly seem to understand it as it is, at least the so-called "leaders" in government.

Gun control works, just ask Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Hitler actually expanded gun ownership laws. At least if you were Aryan

[Gun Manufacturers]

If we were to follow the second amendment in the way it is written, personal gun ownership is illegal. It states, and most probably know already, "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." This means that gun ownership is offered to citizens who actively volunteer in functional, local militias. I hardly think that separate individuals with semi-auto rifles constitute as a militia. So, technically, repealing the second amendment wouldn't do anything because personal gun ownership was unconstitutional to begin with. We might as well repeal it, because it doesn't apply to a modern society - we don't need militias when we have the most kickass military on the planet. But another amendment should set in place clear boundaries on gun ownership and the beloved right to bear arms.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. In DC v. Heller, they ruled that firearms ownership is an individual right. After all, it does say "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". Everywhere else in the Constitution, "the people" refers to individuals, so why would they use a different meaning for this ONE amendment?

44 states also have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions (for example, CT's state constitution Article 1 Section 15 states: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state).

[Imperializt Russia]

People hardly seem to understand it as it is, at least the so-called "leaders" in government.

Gun control works, just ask Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Stop repeating such bullshit tropes and come back with an actual argument, plz.

[Kernen]

Which is nothing more than making the innocent helpless.

The government will protect them, with the police and military.

And will the police protect them in the long minutes between the call being placed to 911 and their arrival? What about between the threat or assault and the call being placed? Especially in areas with very long police response times? Shall victims just resign themselves to their fate in that time?

Your opinions hinge on either omnipresent police or mankind being a race of angels, neither of which is possible or desirable.

[The 502nd SS]

Which is nothing more than making the innocent helpless.

The government will protect them, with the police and military.

I don't think that the two men that broke into my grandmother's house would wait an hour for police to arrive. However her shotgun convinced the thugs that they picked the wrong house.

[Braberland]

Well, your silly third world country is too screwed up to go without guns, so carry on with your guns you filthy serfs.

Nah, seriously now, I think you should probably keep those rights, America is a very different country which can't live on without guns.

[Spirit of Hope]

If we were to follow the second amendment in the way it is written, personal gun ownership is illegal. It states, and most probably know already, "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." This means that gun ownership is offered to citizens who actively volunteer in functional, local militias. I hardly think that separate individuals with semi-auto rifles constitute as a militia. So, technically, repealing the second amendment wouldn't do anything because personal gun ownership was unconstitutional to begin with. We might as well repeal it, because it doesn't apply to a modern society - we don't need militias when we have the most kickass military on the planet. But another amendment should set in place clear boundaries on gun ownership and the beloved right to bear arms.

Nope.

As already noted, DC v. Heller determined that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

McDonald v. City of Chicago determined that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

Also see this post:

After all it very clearly says "the right of the people" in the 2nd Amendment. A phrase that pops up 7 times in the Constitution, each time referring to the body of the people entire.

Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article One Section Two:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Second Amendment:
"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."

Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So unless for some strange reason the framers decided to use the same phrase in the Second Amendment with a different definition, the people means people and has nothing to do with the militia.

As you can see the Second Amendment is clearly about the individual persons right to own guns. Additionally as has not been noted, at the time Militia covered all free men from the ages of 18 to 60 or so. So even if it did apply only to the militia a good chunk of the population would be protected, and the rest of the population could argued to be protected by the amendment because we aren't sexist anymore.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. In DC v. Heller, they ruled that firearms ownership is an individual right. After all, it does say "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". Everywhere else in the Constitution, "the people" refers to individuals, so why would they use a different meaning for this ONE amendment?

44 states also have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions (for example, CT's state constitution Article 1 Section 15 states: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state).

I realize that state constitutions give clear right to bear arms, but this discussion is about the Second Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights. I realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but I'm here to give my own opinion and interpretation of the Second Amendment. In addition, you quoted the Amendment, putting emphasis on "the right of the people," right? So you're basically disregarding the entire first half of the Amendment and sticking to what supports you. Congratulations, and I hope you give a more logical response next time.

[Spirit of Hope]

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. In DC v. Heller, they ruled that firearms ownership is an individual right. After all, it does say "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". Everywhere else in the Constitution, "the people" refers to individuals, so why would they use a different meaning for this ONE amendment?

44 states also have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions (for example, CT's state constitution Article 1 Section 15 states: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state).

I realize that state constitutions give clear right to bear arms, but this discussion is about the Second Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights. I realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but I'm here to give my own opinion and interpretation of the Second Amendment. In addition, you quoted the Amendment, putting emphasis on "the right of the people," right? So you're basically disregarding the entire first half of the Amendment and sticking to what supports you. Congratulations, and I hope you give a more logical response next time.

You must have missed my above post. In your interpretation you completely ignore what Militia meant at the time, and what the phrase "the people" means in the constitution. The Second Amendment very clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Through out the constitution "the people" means just that the people, not a subset of the people or people who belong to certain organizations.

[Paddy O Fernature]

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. In DC v. Heller, they ruled that firearms ownership is an individual right. After all, it does say "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". Everywhere else in the Constitution, "the people" refers to individuals, so why would they use a different meaning for this ONE amendment?

44 states also have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions (for example, CT's state constitution Article 1 Section 15 states: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state).

I realize that state constitutions give clear right to bear arms, but this discussion is about the Second Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights. I realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but I'm here to give my own opinion and interpretation of the Second Amendment. In addition, you quoted the Amendment, putting emphasis on "the right of the people," right? So you're basically disregarding the entire first half of the Amendment and sticking to what supports you. Congratulations, and I hope you give a more logical response next time.

I'm sorry, but GM's post was blatantly clear and perfectly logical. Disagree all you want with his postings, but don't sit here and try to dismiss it on the bullshit reasonings you've given so far.

[Scomagia]

Gun rights in general, I understand.

Gun rights that involve semi-automatic and automatic weapons, I don't.

Are suggesting we should only be able to possess muskets?

[The 502nd SS]

Gun rights in general, I understand.

Gun rights that involve semi-automatic and automatic weapons, I don't.

Are suggesting we should only be able to possess muskets?

and bolt actions