2nd amendment

[Grave_n_idle]

I would recommend, if possible based on your location, simply go to a gun shop and/or shooting range and spend some time there. See what you can learn and ask if you can fire off a few rounds. Once you actually experience it, it very likely will change your mind. If it does not, then accept that you wasted some time and money and continue on with your life.

Indeed. I was quite pro-gun until I spent time with the sorts of people that want them.

That's what you meant, right?

[Cameroi]

what i think is that banning the possession of anything a person makes themselves, is an open door to unreasonable searches and seazures. i think the only reason fire arms haven't gone away, is a certain mentality that goes with the idea that killing people can prevent tyranny or rescue people from it, when in reality, most conflicts, whether between nations or individuals, have nothing to do with removing tyranny in any sense, nor any interest in doing so. neither, for legal reasons, and understandably neccessary legal reasons, is leathal force the most practical form of personal self defense. though of course the threat of it, if convincing, may prove effective.

the real problem is a culture that romantacizes confrontation and aggressiveness. guns are simply an unfortunate artifact of this. yes you can kill something to eat with them. what percentage of firearms are ever actually used for doing so.

well regulated are definitely the key words there too. meaning, to me, responsible and accountable. not something unregulated citizen malitias, in an era when we have a standing army, are particularly well noted for.

the america of the constitution predated many things the america of today is familiar with and takes for granted. the alien and sedition act for example. or corporate personhood. or even highspeed communication and transportation.

[The Waiting Fox]

I just don't get why do you need so many guns on the streets- To what purpose? I'm an Israeli who had an army issued rifle and handgun with him for 5 years, during an unstable and dangerous time in the country, and I'm just one out of thousands of combat soldiers who were allowed to take their weapons home with them. And I never had to use it once. Hell, in the last 5-6 years, not even one of all of those combat soldiers had to use any of those weapons while off-duty and on civilian areas; not for robberies, crimes or even terrorist attacks- that's what the police, and in certain areas, on-duty military forces do. The only thing it does cause, however, because of strict gun control laws to anyone who isn't in the army, is a lot of weapon theft and sometimes, suicides, and we are talking about guns who were issued only to combat trained soldiers or quasi combat soldiers who lived in risky areas.

To tell you I didn't feel safer when I had a weapon would be lying, but it's a false sense of security, and after being in the military and seeing the potential, easy, horrible damage guns do, I'm not even happy that most Israeli combat soldiers do get to take their guns home, and would hope to even see that number drop. Guns are horrible, they are dangerous, and they should be kept and used only by professionals in a regulated system and organization, and not by anyone else.

[Terran Apeiron Dunamis]

People ignore founding fathers and bend their legislation to fit their own desires, Enough Said.

[Grave_n_idle]

People ignore founding fathers and bend their legislation to fit their own desires, Enough Said.

People should ignore the founding fathers. There were some good ideas there, and some really bad ones. People need to stop treating them like they were infallible, or some kind of second coming of Christ.

[Yes Im Biop]

Why? Unlike bees, firearms are inanimate objects. If I drop my Glock, it's not going to go off, but if I drop a jar of bees, who knows if/how many people might be stung when the jar shatters on the ground.

Firearms have been known to discharge when dropped.

Yes, They have also been known to fire randomly.
Lets jump forward 150 years
Most weapons now a days unless they have a Hair trigger wont go off if they are dropped. As you have to pull a bolt, charging handle or hammer for it to become capable of firing. Dropping one without doing this makes it nearly impossible to discharge when drop.

[Alien Space Bats]

People ignore founding fathers and bend their legislation to fit their own desires, Enough Said.

People should ignore the founding fathers. There were some good ideas there, and some really bad ones. People need to stop treating them like they were infallible, or some kind of second coming of Christ.

More importantly, people need to abandon the idea that "original intent" is at all useful in interpreting the Constitution.

Even the hardest of hard-core judicial conservatives on today's Supreme Court don't use "original intent" to support their findings; most of them are textualists whose apparent interest in "original intent" is actually more an effort to determine how certain words and phrases were used at the time a law was enacted, largely in an effort to derive linguistic meaning from the words of a statute. You can see this in the various extensive quotes I've made in this thread from Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in McDonald: He doesn't so much ask what the 39th United States Congress was trying to do in enacting the 14th Amendment (although their intent rapidly becomes apparent) as he asks what they meant when they used terms like "privileges or immunities" and "due process". Thus, while it's sometimes difficult to tell the two schools of thought apart, "original meaning" should never be confused with "original intent".

[Shady Deals]

I would recommend, if possible based on your location, simply go to a gun shop and/or shooting range and spend some time there. See what you can learn and ask if you can fire off a few rounds. Once you actually experience it, it very likely will change your mind. If it does not, then accept that you wasted some time and money and continue on with your life.

Indeed. I was quite pro-gun until I spent time with the sorts of people that want them.

That's what you meant, right?

Could you please elaborate on your decision?

[Spreewerke]

I would recommend, if possible based on your location, simply go to a gun shop and/or shooting range and spend some time there. See what you can learn and ask if you can fire off a few rounds. Once you actually experience it, it very likely will change your mind. If it does not, then accept that you wasted some time and money and continue on with your life.

Indeed. I was quite pro-gun until I spent time with the sorts of people that want them.

That's what you meant, right?

Are you like those "sorts of people"? If not, then it should be pretty clear that not every other gun owner is, either.

[Genivaria]

I say we replace the "right to bear arms" with "the right to not have your internet regulated".

[New England and The Maritimes]

The second amendment was an attempt to ensure that, in order to make war, congress had to engage the population in that war by calling up the militias, which men were required to be members of. It wasn't an attempt to ensure that everybody had the right to go dirty harry on the nearest "suspicious person."

[Phalaska]

I think the first comma leads to confusion. The version ratified only has one comma:

The reasoning may have been militias, but the operative portion does not include such a limit.

The phrase "well regulated" should indicate a need for control. They could not have imagined weapons that can kill multiple people in a matter of seconds. Except for slow-loading cannon firing grapeshot. Somehow I doubt if they would have approved of people owning several cannons that could be carried around on a shopping trip. That's what a modern submachinegun is in 18th. century terms. Would they have approved of personal ownership of a weapon that can kill a person over a mile away? Some states allow private ownership of a Barrett .50 sniper rifle. What the hell for? One shot would blow a huge hunk out of a deer. Assault rifles are lousy hunting weapons too. Not so good as a home defence weapon either. A slug will go through walls and kill anyone on the other side. Piss-poor on the range too. Single shot or bolt action weapons are far, far more accurate. They probably had no issue with carrying a concealed pistol. Single shot muzzle loaders are of little use in threatening 30 or 40 people in a bank, for instance. Not so much if concealing a 15 shot 9mm weapon. But many Americans are fascinated by guns with no civilian application. Who knows why.

You are just spitting ignorance and half truths around like candy.

First off, Which it? Are weapons too powerful for civilians, or are they ineffective in a military capacity? It's funny, you anti gun fools want to ban weapons for being too effective, then you claim that the Second Amendment, which protects against banning of said weapons, is obsolete because granddad's hunting shotgun is not good against tanks, really?

The .50 rifle is pretty much the ideal militia weapon. If you judge the applicability of the second amendment to protect different weapons, as being one of weighing their military, aka "militia" utility, vs the harm to society these weapons cause in the hands of criminals, then the .50BMG rifle is at the far end of perfect applicability. If the founding fathers were alive today, and given a thorough presentation on modern weapons and guerrilla warfare techniques by say, a US Army Special Forces 18B weapons Sergeant, they would come to pretty much the same conclusion.

Why?

Because the .50BMG is a very, very, poor choice to use in the commission of a crime. We are talking about a gun that, with ammo and accompanying equipment, weighs near 50 pounds. Cost over $10,000 dollars, and CANNOT be concealed on somebody's person.

In the entire history of the United states, There is only one instance of a .50BMG rifle being used to in the commission of the crime (Gang member shooting another gang member) So it's impact on "gun crime" (there is an idiotic term, as if crimes committed with knives and fist are not crimes!) is practically nil.

Now what are the military utilities of this rifle? They are vast, and primarily of an anti material nature. Radar, or communications array set up? .50 can destroy or disable it. Light vehicles? Consider their engine blocks toast.

And your comment about "Assault rifles" being a poor choice for self defense, because they pierce walls, while bolt actions are fine, is simply idiotic and ignorant.

The DEFINING FEATURES of an assault rifle are: Select fire (Full auto, or single shot), a detachable magazine, and being chambered for a medium sized cartridge. The Notion that these have some kind of inherently higher ability to over penetrate compared to a traditional rifle is flatly false. The 5.56x45 NATO round used by the AR-15 series fires a bullet that is (usually) only 62 grans, for comparison a .45ACP pistol fires a bullet of 200+ grans, and this round is KNOWN for it's inability to over penetrate walls and other barriers, but you know what will fly right through a wall though? Granddad's politically correct 30-06 hunting rifle.

And AR-15 is actually the ideal home defense gun: It is ergonomic, has little recoil, a 20 or 30 round detachable Magazine, is chambered for a 5.56 or 223 cartridge, and has a flash hider.

Why do those features make it an ideal home defense weapon?

First, ergonomics: These makes the weapon easier and more intuitive to use, and increases practical accuracy.

Recoil: Most women and people of small stature have difficulty firing a 12 gauge shotgun, less recoil makes practice easier and more enjoyable, as well as making follow up shots quicker.

30 round detachable magazine:

a. When you are in a life threatening situation, adrenalin kicks in, and fine motor functions are hindered, in practical terms this means when a masked man, or gang of men, is in your home trying to rape you, you will not shoot as accurately as you do at the range, and reloading will be very, very difficult. This means more ammo in the magazine is a good thing, and is much more important in a defensive situation than in an offensive one -- If you're trying to murder somebody you only need one bullet, but if you are scared out of your mind shooingt madly trying to save yourself, possibly against multiple attackers, you will need every bullet you can get.

b. safety: if you want to keep a gun in your house for defense you will have to either keep it loaded, or you will have to take time that you may not have to load it. Keeping your guns unloaded is safer, then again under stress, with shells and cartridges falling from your twitching fingers like grans of rice, you may not be able to load the weapon in time. It is harder to load a shotgun's tubular magazine under stress than most people assume. HOWEVER, if your AR-15 has a detachable magazine you can keep the rifle unloaded, safe, with a loaded magazine nearby, throw the magazine in, slam back the charging handle, and you are ready. Safe and still very fast and easy under stress.

Flash hider: This evil "Military" feature, idiotically banned in the "Assault weapons" ban of 1994, doe snot make the gun more powerful, it does not enable "Rapid fire". All it does is make the flash of unburnt powder leaving the barrel smaller, so the shooter is not blinded (as much), and maintains more of his natural night vision.... which is very important at night when your are hiding in your room with the lights off whispering to a 911 operator.

There it is, the AR-15, the perfect domestic accessory...

[Phalaska]

People ignore founding fathers and bend their legislation to fit their own desires, Enough Said.

People should ignore the founding fathers. There were some good ideas there, and some really bad ones. People need to stop treating them like they were infallible, or some kind of second coming of Christ.

Name the bad ones? Their ideas were mostly rooted in the enlightenment and involved protecting people from tyrannical government, these are really fucking good ideas that are needed today more than ever, and where are the bad ones? Sure, most of them were Christians and a few made state constitutions which border on theocracy...but nothing that compares to the unadulterated awesome that is the Bill of Rights.

And before you say: "They wer da slav ownahs!11" I'll cut you off right there. Slavery was not an idea unique to the founding fathers, it was a part of the time they lived in, and by and large they were not really for it. There were more founding fathers who were outright abolitionist than there were ardent slavery supporters. Even the ones that owned slaves themselves where not real big fans of the institution.

[Raeyh]

but nothing that compares to the unadulterated awesome that is the Bill of Rights.

Most of the Bill of Rights don't actually give you any protection whatsoever.

1. Freedom of Speech... unless it's slander, obscene, or if the speech causes harm. Also, your fellow citizens can censor you all they want.
2. Right to keep and bear arms... not specifying what kind of arms you can get.
3. Conditions for quarters of soldiers is good, but it rarely comes up any more.
4. Right of search and seizure. Protection from unreasonable searches... unless it's in a public place.
5. Provisons concerning prosecution is fine.
6. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. Because having a fast trial is what all criminals want.
7. Right to a trial by jury. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose.
8. Excessive bail, cruel punishment... is fine as long as it's not also unusual.
9. Rule of construction of Constitution is a nice afterthought.
10. Rights of the States under Constitution... means nothing thanks to the elastic clause.

[Utopia FTW]

Got a gun, in fact I got two
But that's ok man, 'cause I love God

Glorified version of a pellet gun
feel so manly, when armed.

[Phalaska]

but nothing that compares to the unadulterated awesome that is the Bill of Rights.

Most of the Bill of Rights don't actually give you any protection whatsoever.

1. Freedom of Speech... unless it's slander, obscene, or if the speech causes harm. Also, your fellow citizens can censor you all they want.
2. Right to keep and bear arms... not specifying what kind of arms you can get.
3. Conditions for quarters of soldiers is good, but it rarely comes up any more.
4. Right of search and seizure. Protection from unreasonable searches... unless it's in a public place.
5. Provisons concerning prosecution is fine.
6. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. Because having a fast trial is what all criminals want.
7. Right to a trial by jury. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose.
8. Excessive bail, cruel punishment... is fine as long as it's not also unusual.
9. Rule of construction of Constitution is a nice afterthought.
10. Rights of the States under Constitution... means nothing thanks to the elastic clause.

That the bill of rights don't give ANY protection WHATSOEVER is absurd and pretty much lost you any following debate since you are arguing from the extreme position, all that has to be proven is that any one of those amendments has ever granted any modicum of protection to liberty, which is readily apparent to anyone and hardly even needs to be argued.

[Grave_n_idle]

And before you say: "They wer da slav ownahs!11" I'll cut you off right there. Slavery was not an idea unique to the founding fathers...

"But miissss, everyone else was doing it".

It didn't work for me in kindergarten, and - apparently uniquely - I hold the founders to a higher standard than a pre-schooler.

[Cabot den Sol]

I myself, feel that everyone has the right to bear arms, UNLESS you have some sort of criminal record. I'm not talking about getting pulled over for speeding or even getting in a bar fight, but trying to steal or assault, then your rights are stripped.

Another thing I think we all need to remember is that the English language was a little can I say "floozy" back then. In modern day society we use terms differently, so militia could possibly qualify to a lot of people.

[Acrainia]

The amendment protects the rights of citizens to own weapons of a quality that allows them to effectively form a militia to defend themselves.

I think its reasonable to think that non-automatic small arms are sufficient to reasonably defend ones self and family from a threat. Anything less would violate this amendment and more or less remove the ability for the citizen to effectively defend themselves, anything more is allowing too much firepower to too many people.

I fully support background checks and limits on carrying guns in certain places, but ownership and access to reasonable levels of armament should never be curtailed.

Just look at the Swiss, they get along just fine and they're 2nd only to the US in their gun per person ratio.

[Safed]

The amendment protects the rights of citizens to own weapons of a quality that allows them to effectively form a militia to defend themselves.

I think its reasonable to think that non-automatic small arms are sufficient to reasonably defend ones self and family from a threat. Anything less would violate this amendment and more or less remove the ability for the citizen to effectively defend themselves, anything more is allowing too much firepower to too many people.

I fully support background checks and limits on carrying guns in certain places, but ownership and access to reasonable levels of armament should never be curtailed.

Just look at the Swiss, they get along just fine and they're 2nd only to the US in their gun per person ratio.

BUT all Swiss men are fully trained and regulated members of their milita and can be called to arms to protect their neutrality. That's the difference, they have conscription, so everyone with a gun has at least a year of proper firearm training.

[Farnhamia]

The amendment protects the rights of citizens to own weapons of a quality that allows them to effectively form a militia to defend themselves.

I think its reasonable to think that non-automatic small arms are sufficient to reasonably defend ones self and family from a threat. Anything less would violate this amendment and more or less remove the ability for the citizen to effectively defend themselves, anything more is allowing too much firepower to too many people.

I fully support background checks and limits on carrying guns in certain places, but ownership and access to reasonable levels of armament should never be curtailed.

Just look at the Swiss, they get along just fine and they're 2nd only to the US in their gun per person ratio.

BUT all Swiss men are fully trained and regulated members of their milita and can be called to arms to protect their neutrality. That's the difference, they have conscription, so everyone with a gun has at least a year of proper firearm training.

Even when the US had conscription we didn't send our discharged servicemen home with their guns.

As far as Acraina's post, forming a militia to defend themselves is all well and good in the 18th and 19th centuries, when there was an actual frontier along which irrate indigenous peoples or foreign powers formed a threat. That hasn't been the situation in the United States for at least a hundred years. If a comparable threat were to arise today - I don't know what that would be - the government would not call up the local militia forces and ask them to bring their guns. They would activate the National Guard, whose weapons are provided by the government. I'm not against gun ownership, but please don't keep dragging up the "we have to be able to form a militia to defend ourselves" reason. A goodly number of the fiercest gun advocates would soil themselves if faced with a real threat of the type they think they need their guns to counter.

[Safed]

BUT all Swiss men are fully trained and regulated members of their milita and can be called to arms to protect their neutrality. That's the difference, they have conscription, so everyone with a gun has at least a year of proper firearm training.

Even when the US had conscription we didn't send our discharged servicemen home with their guns.

As far as Acraina's post, forming a militia to defend themselves is all well and good in the 18th and 19th centuries, when there was an actual frontier along which irrate indigenous peoples or foreign powers formed a threat. That hasn't been the situation in the United States for at least a hundred years. If a comparable threat were to arise today - I don't know what that would be - the government would not call up the local militia forces and ask them to bring their guns. They would activate the National Guard, whose weapons are provided by the government. I'm not against gun ownership, but please don't keep dragging up the "we have to be able to form a militia to defend ourselves" reason. A goodly number of the fiercest gun advocates would soil themselves if faced with a real threat of the type they think they need their guns to counter.

That's my point, that it is outdated and not of practical use in the present. I was just explaining why the Swiss are better with their weapons.

[Phalaska]

The amendment protects the rights of citizens to own weapons of a quality that allows them to effectively form a militia to defend themselves.

I think its reasonable to think that non-automatic small arms are sufficient to reasonably defend ones self and family from a threat. Anything less would violate this amendment and more or less remove the ability for the citizen to effectively defend themselves, anything more is allowing too much firepower to too many people.

I fully support background checks and limits on carrying guns in certain places, but ownership and access to reasonable levels of armament should never be curtailed.

Just look at the Swiss, they get along just fine and they're 2nd only to the US in their gun per person ratio.

BUT all Swiss men are fully trained and regulated members of their milita and can be called to arms to protect their neutrality. That's the difference, they have conscription, so everyone with a gun has at least a year of proper firearm training.

That is incorrect, not ALL Swiss men are members of the militia. And the ones that are are given 1 Sig assault Rifle (Sig-552 series?) and a sealed case of 50 rounds of ammo, if they break into the ammo, for ANY reason, they are breaking the law.

Once they are discharged from military service they have the option to buy their rifle, in which case it is "De-militarized", converted to semi auto only, and then they can take it to the target range, keep it for self defense, etc, but they are NOT members of the militia that would be called upon to defend Switzerland should the French invade again.

[Vaugania]

Before you reply, I want to point out that this is not trolling/flamebait or w/e but an honest question.

Why do some citizens of the USA believe they have a "God-given right to bear arms" when the actual second amendment was not written in such a way as to condone the carrying of firearms by civilians.

The second amendment goes as follows:
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.
(from http://www.usconstitution.net/)

The key bit here is the Well regulated Militia. This amendment was made because when it was written, in the 1790s, the USA did not want a standing army, although they lived in a hostile country whereby a standing armed force was necessary. This amendment was a way round the problem, a way to get a properly trained and armed militia to use in times of conflict or defence, in part due to the contribution made by militias, or minutemen in the war of independence.

I think a lot of the confusion comes down to people just quoting the second half of this amendment, nicely ignoring the militia part. Another ( admittedly forced) example of this is just quoting half a famous line from Shakespear, when Romeo says "Yonder window breaks," now, he is a vandal rather than someone who claims to be in love, although considering the romance lasted 3 days and was between a 17 and 13 year old. That is beside the point.

Anyway, back to the 2nd amendment, I'm genuinely interested as to what others, mainly Americans, think about this, I'm sure my post isn't original in its nature but I'm wondering, I'm also aware that the right to carry is far too a contentious issue for anything to ever actually be done about it.

tl;dr basically, the right to carry results from misreading the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, is this purposeful or do people just genuinely not take an interest in a feature that is supposed to be a major part of their history?

First of all, I would like to state that the Constitution was written in 1787. Not quite the 1790s. But as for the issue at hand, I believe we Americans should have the right to own weapons. It is how we protect ourselves. You hear about people who shot thieves and people breaking into their house occassionally. Better the criminal dead than the law-abiding citizens. The people who have guns are screened and not every Bob and Tom can just walk into a store and buy a gun. And besides, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.