Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Neu Leonstein]

On the topic of the grammar section, I have lots of interesting things that can explain it better for a non-English speaker.

Non-English speaker in the 98th percentile of the verbal GRE and a 5/5 for the writing part, but meh.

But it sounds like you have particular post-war writings in mind. Care to post details? It's hard to just argue in hypotheticals, and hell, maybe I'll learn something.

Again, I sincerely believe you are wrong. As an American, I find the European contempt for the rule of law (as evident your joke contract law system) and willingness to abrogate their rights maddening. I agree that they would be surprised. I disagree that they would upturn or compromise on their ideals.

I get that you really don't like whatever happened with that contract. But the idea that Europe has contempt for the rule of law (France especially, of all places) needs backing up. In a separate thread.

Anyway, I am not saying they would change the intention of the bill of rights or the constitution. But I think they would recognise that this intention could be better served by updated sentences on that paper. Sure, maybe some would be so against making any changes at all (slippery slope or whatever), but given that they explicitly allowed for amendments to be made I don't think they'd be that dogmatic about it. And given that, the question goes back to what the intention is in the first place.

[Greed and Death]

That is not quite as clear as you make it sound once we travel to the world of 18th century English. The term 'militia' could refer to the what is now called the national guard, a posse commitatus, or every single white male of military age(the 13th, and 14th amendments would have extended these obviously).

Looking at the text of the Constitution as a whole we see the president is the commander and chief of the "Militia of the Several States" and the second amendment refers to simply "militia". Generally in legal matters if you use a different word or phrase you are referring to something different.

Yeah, but I wasn't so much talking about who would be allowed to have a gun, but why they needed to be allowed to have them. Think about what any definition of militia would have been there to do in 18th century North America. In that world, having an entirely professional army that was exclusively in charge of national defense was not realistic. So making sure that raising a citizen militia that could bring its own arms was practically important. Militarily expedient, as I said. But there is also a political aspect to it, that's true. Even if it had been feasible, I'm not sure how enthusiastic the founding fathers would have been about an entirely professional military without citizen soldiers who take up arms themselves when required. And even aside from arguments about the moral duties and character of the American citizen, there's the whole line of argument about how having an armed populace prevents tyrannical dictatorship.

To me those are the topics that the 2nd amendment are about. I personally don't think they really work in the 21st century, but that's beside the point. And the reason for that is that somehow the modern courts have interpreted the amendment as apparently being more about the rights of gun ownership in general, for hobby, hunting or self-defense. That seems a weird way to read that piece of text, but as I said, I didn't grow up in that culture so I don't have an emotional stake in trying to read it a certain way.
[snipping to focus on what interests me more atm]

Lets assume that it is about the political aspect as you said. Armed citizens preventing tyranny, and the founding fathers disliking standing professional armies ( they did not the army is explicitly limited to two years of funding at a time for that reason). So you have the right now to own a weapon for militia service, but you can't practice with it as a hobby ( I assume you meant target shooting there), can't keep it in your home for self defense(community storage), and you can't hunt with it to gain practice on a moving target.

Those sound like very good way to ensure you can not exercise the duties of the militia without the govnerment actually banning the militia. We actually run into a similar issue on speech. The core purpose of speech is for political discourse. But if the govnerment can outlaw gossiping about a govnerment official, hate speech, or other non political speech, political speech could be very strongly chilled.

That's why I believe the supreme court was right in saying the 2nd amendment is a personal right, and the right means firearms may be stored and used for any lawful purpose including self defense, hunting, and target shooting.

[Grand Britannia]

Banning drugs worked, that's why no one can get drugs now a days, so banning weapons makes them di-

Oh wait...oh no...

[Roski]

Yeah, but I wasn't so much talking about who would be allowed to have a gun, but why they needed to be allowed to have them. Think about what any definition of militia would have been there to do in 18th century North America. In that world, having an entirely professional army that was exclusively in charge of national defense was not realistic. So making sure that raising a citizen militia that could bring its own arms was practically important. Militarily expedient, as I said. But there is also a political aspect to it, that's true. Even if it had been feasible, I'm not sure how enthusiastic the founding fathers would have been about an entirely professional military without citizen soldiers who take up arms themselves when required. And even aside from arguments about the moral duties and character of the American citizen, there's the whole line of argument about how having an armed populace prevents tyrannical dictatorship.

To me those are the topics that the 2nd amendment are about. I personally don't think they really work in the 21st century, but that's beside the point. And the reason for that is that somehow the modern courts have interpreted the amendment as apparently being more about the rights of gun ownership in general, for hobby, hunting or self-defense. That seems a weird way to read that piece of text, but as I said, I didn't grow up in that culture so I don't have an emotional stake in trying to read it a certain way.
[snipping to focus on what interests me more atm]

Lets assume that it is about the political aspect as you said. Armed citizens preventing tyranny, and the founding fathers disliking standing professional armies ( they did not the army is explicitly limited to two years of funding at a time for that reason). So you have the right now to own a weapon for militia service, but you can't practice with it as a hobby ( I assume you meant target shooting there), can't keep it in your home for self defense(community storage), and you can't hunt with it to gain practice on a moving target.

Those sound like very good way to ensure you can not exercise the duties of the militia without the govnerment actually banning the militia. We actually run into a similar issue on speech. The core purpose of speech is for political discourse. But if the govnerment can outlaw gossiping about a govnerment official, hate speech, or other non political speech, political speech could be very strongly chilled.

That's why I believe the supreme court was right in saying the 2nd amendment is a personal right, and the right means firearms may be stored and used for any lawful purpose including self defense, hunting, and target shooting.

I've had it explained that the 2nd Ammendment exists as an absolute deterrent against a tyrannical military. That the average person should be able to fight against the United States MIlitary, if needed. That I should be able to own equipment similar to what the military has.

What this means of course is that I should be legally allowed to buy an F-22, or a Predator, or a 155mm howitzer, or a M1 Abrams, or an Arleigh Burke class Destroyer.

[Annorax]

Yeah, but I wasn't so much talking about who would be allowed to have a gun, but why they needed to be allowed to have them. Think about what any definition of militia would have been there to do in 18th century North America. In that world, having an entirely professional army that was exclusively in charge of national defense was not realistic. So making sure that raising a citizen militia that could bring its own arms was practically important. Militarily expedient, as I said. But there is also a political aspect to it, that's true. Even if it had been feasible, I'm not sure how enthusiastic the founding fathers would have been about an entirely professional military without citizen soldiers who take up arms themselves when required. And even aside from arguments about the moral duties and character of the American citizen, there's the whole line of argument about how having an armed populace prevents tyrannical dictatorship.

To me those are the topics that the 2nd amendment are about. I personally don't think they really work in the 21st century, but that's beside the point. And the reason for that is that somehow the modern courts have interpreted the amendment as apparently being more about the rights of gun ownership in general, for hobby, hunting or self-defense. That seems a weird way to read that piece of text, but as I said, I didn't grow up in that culture so I don't have an emotional stake in trying to read it a certain way.
[snipping to focus on what interests me more atm]

Lets assume that it is about the political aspect as you said. Armed citizens preventing tyranny, and the founding fathers disliking standing professional armies ( they did not the army is explicitly limited to two years of funding at a time for that reason). So you have the right now to own a weapon for militia service, but you can't practice with it as a hobby ( I assume you meant target shooting there), can't keep it in your home for self defense(community storage), and you can't hunt with it to gain practice on a moving target.

Those sound like very good way to ensure you can not exercise the duties of the militia without the govnerment actually banning the militia. We actually run into a similar issue on speech. The core purpose of speech is for political discourse. But if the govnerment can outlaw gossiping about a govnerment official, hate speech, or other non political speech, political speech could be very strongly chilled.

That's why I believe the supreme court was right in saying the 2nd amendment is a personal right, and the right means firearms may be stored and used for any lawful purpose including self defense, hunting, and target shooting.

Correct and better said than I ever could. The 2nd amendment is not just some right. What is missing from your assessment is that not only does the right to bear arms exist but that it should be well regulated. In 18th century English that means it runs well, like a clock. So being able to train and maintain such weapons is included. In any and all things.

[Organized States]

The easier answer is to dramatically increase the taxation on ammunition along with a much clearer and more comprehensive background check program and easier access mental health care in this country. But, of course, I know I'll be drowned out because what I said actually makes sense and I'll simply be derided by one side as being a "Liebral" or a "Stupid Berntard" and by the other side as a "Gun-owning Fascist", because godforbid we ever have civil political discourse.

[Annorax]

The easier answer is to dramatically increase the taxation on ammunition along with a much clearer and more comprehensive background check program and easier access mental health care in this country. But, of course, I know I'll be drowned out because what I said actually makes sense and I'll simply be derided by one side as being a "Liebral" or a "Stupid Berntard" and by the other side as a "Gun-owning Fascist", because godforbid we ever have civil political discourse.

"Shall not be infringed" includes arms, like ammunition. Just say you want amendment 2 repealed and be honest about it.

[New Grestin]

I'm starting to wonder if the Founding Fathers knew how much people would wank on that one particular segment of the Constitution.

It's like, guys, we get it. You want to have assault rifles for some inexplicable reason. People want to not be shot to death. Let's make a fucking compromise here.

Obama doesn't want your guns. Lawmakers don't want to disarm your for the new PC Shadow Government.

People want to not be dead. People want their kids to not be dead.

I think gun-owners can live with not having drum magazines and M4A1 Assault Rifles.

I know I get along just fine without them.

[Annorax]

I'm starting to wonder if the Founding Fathers knew how much people would wank on that one particular segment of the Constitution.

It's like, guys, we get it. You want to have assault rifles for some inexplicable reason. People want to not be shot to death. Let's make a fucking compromise here.

Obama doesn't want your guns. Lawmakers don't want to disarm your for the new PC Shadow Government.

People want to not be dead. People want their kids to not be dead.

I think gun-owners can live with not having drum magazines and M4A1 Assault Rifles.

I know I get along just fine without them.

Amendment 2 has nothing to do with that though. It is not there for duck hunting, it is there to ensure the government complies with the will of the people. Government should be afraid of the people they are governing.

[Organized States]

The easier answer is to dramatically increase the taxation on ammunition along with a much clearer and more comprehensive background check program and easier access mental health care in this country. But, of course, I know I'll be drowned out because what I said actually makes sense and I'll simply be derided by one side as being a "Liebral" or a "Stupid Berntard" and by the other side as a "Gun-owning Fascist", because godforbid we ever have civil political discourse.

"Shall not be infringed" includes arms, like ammunition. Just say you want amendment 2 replealed and be honest about it.

Look at you, going to an extreme already and proving my exact fucking point.

Godforbid the fact that I shoot as a hobby and have shot competitively in National Competition.

[Annorax]

"Shall not be infringed" includes arms, like ammunition. Just say you want amendment 2 replealed and be honest about it.

Look at you, going to an extreme already and proving my exact fucking point.

Godforbid the fact that I shoot as a hobby and have shot competitively in National Competition.

There is nothing wrong with that. The point is that is that why amendment 2 is on the books.

[Organized States]

I'm starting to wonder if the Founding Fathers knew how much people would wank on that one particular segment of the Constitution.

It's like, guys, we get it. You want to have assault rifles for some inexplicable reason. People want to not be shot to death. Let's make a fucking compromise here.

Obama doesn't want your guns. Lawmakers don't want to disarm your for the new PC Shadow Government.

People want to not be dead. People want their kids to not be dead.

I think gun-owners can live with not having drum magazines and M4A1 Assault Rifles.

I know I get along just fine without them.

Amendment 2 has nothing to do with that though. It is not there for duck hunting, it is there to ensure the government complies with the will of the people. Government should be afraid of the people they are governing.

It's also not there for people to be afraid that some mentally-ill man is going to walk into a school and kill 20 kids or that some gangbanger is going to shoot a Cop with a high-powered rifle.

This isn't about gun-free zones, or any of that other bullshit either. This is about people not being afraid to live in their own community.

[Organized States]

Look at you, going to an extreme already and proving my exact fucking point.

Godforbid the fact that I shoot as a hobby and have shot competitively in National Competition.

There is nothing wrong with that. The point is that is that why amendment 2 is on the books.

No, it's you proving my exact point and saying that any attempt at controlling the copious amounts of gun violence in this country is an assault on the 2nd Amendment.

No, the Government is not here for your fucking guns. Get over it.

[Roski]

I'm starting to wonder if the Founding Fathers knew how much people would wank on that one particular segment of the Constitution.

It's like, guys, we get it. You want to have assault rifles for some inexplicable reason. People want to not be shot to death. Let's make a fucking compromise here.

Obama doesn't want your guns. Lawmakers don't want to disarm your for the new PC Shadow Government.

People want to not be dead. People want their kids to not be dead.

I think gun-owners can live with not having drum magazines and M4A1 Assault Rifles.

I know I get along just fine without them.

Banning assault weapons isn't the fix.

The universal background checks, and that proposed tax on ammunition sounds fine.

Or, higher taxes on fully automatic rifles.

[Annorax]

There is nothing wrong with that. The point is that is that why amendment 2 is on the books.

No, it's you proving my exact point and saying that any attempt at controlling the copious amounts of gun violence in this country is an assault on the 2nd Amendment.

No, the Government is not here for your fucking guns. Get over it.

Yes they are. I guess there was no murder in the 18th century either.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's G4S.

If you were British, you'd be wholly unsurprised.

It sounds like a terrible and incompetent company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S

Oh good, there is a wiki summarising, I don't have to.

Yeah, it's got a shedload of government contracts because :­privatisation: and it fucks up all of them. They run young offender institutes, and assault the inmates; they tried to ruin the London Olympics by being shit.

I'm starting to wonder if the Founding Fathers knew how much people would wank on that one particular segment of the Constitution.

It's like, guys, we get it. You want to have assault rifles for some inexplicable reason. People want to not be shot to death. Let's make a fucking compromise here.

Obama doesn't want your guns. Lawmakers don't want to disarm your for the new PC Shadow Government.

People want to not be dead. People want their kids to not be dead.

I think gun-owners can live with not having drum magazines and M4A1 Assault Rifles.

I know I get along just fine without them.

Amendment 2 has nothing to do with that though. It is not there for duck hunting, it is there to ensure the government complies with the will of the people. Government should be afraid of the people they are governing.

No it isn't. It is there to defend the government from foreign aggressors. Like in the War of 1812 when the Empire came back for round 2.

[Quying]

There should just be a serious background check for everyone who ever attempts to purchase a firearm, plus more severe punishments for illegal gun-ownership.

[Organized States]

No, it's you proving my exact point and saying that any attempt at controlling the copious amounts of gun violence in this country is an assault on the 2nd Amendment.

No, the Government is not here for your fucking guns. Get over it.

Yes they are. I guess there was no murder in the 18th century either.

There wasn't a massive and growing population, automatic firearms, organized crime that could make the mafia blush, and the ability for a mentally-ill person to murder 50 people at a nightclub in Orlando in the 1800s.

Worst strawman argument of the year. Maybe try harder.

[Annorax]

It sounds like a terrible and incompetent company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S

Oh good, there is a wiki summarising, I don't have to.

Yeah, it's got a shedload of government contracts because :­privatisation: and it fucks up all of them. They run young offender institutes, and assault the inmates; they tried to ruin the London Olympics by being shit.

Amendment 2 has nothing to do with that though. It is not there for duck hunting, it is there to ensure the government complies with the will of the people. Government should be afraid of the people they are governing.

No it isn't. It is there to defend the government from foreign aggressors. Like in the War of 1812 when the Empire came back for round 2.

A foreign invader or domestic tyrant according to English common law.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html

[Imperializt Russia]

Oh good, there is a wiki summarising, I don't have to.

Yeah, it's got a shedload of government contracts because :­privatisation: and it fucks up all of them. They run young offender institutes, and assault the inmates; they tried to ruin the London Olympics by being shit.
No it isn't. It is there to defend the government from foreign aggressors. Like in the War of 1812 when the Empire came back for round 2.

A foreign invader or domestic tyrant according to English common law.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html

I am not reading all that bollocks at this time in a morning.

"Domestic tyrant" is your interpretation of a twenty word amendment that makes no such mention.

[Krjder]

Μολων Λαβε, in the words of a great man. People need to be able to protect themselves

[Quokkastan]

Banning drugs worked, that's why no one can get drugs now a days, so banning weapons makes them di-

Oh wait...oh no...

Not that this is necessarily untrue, but I can't clear a patch of dirt out back by the bushes and grow a crop of P90s.

So it's not a perfect comparison.

[Annorax]

A foreign invader or domestic tyrant according to English common law.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html

I am not reading all that bollocks at this time in a morning.

"Domestic tyrant" is your interpretation of a twenty word amendment that makes no such mention.

That means I should not take your bollocks opinion either.

[Imperializt Russia]

I am not reading all that bollocks at this time in a morning.

"Domestic tyrant" is your interpretation of a twenty word amendment that makes no such mention.

That means I should not take your bollocks opinion either.

It's in tiny eyestrain font and has paragraphs like every thirty lines and no line spacing, it's absurdly hard to read. And I am not reading it.

I'm sure you can find a better summary than a four thousand word essay.

[Annorax]

That means I should not take your bollocks opinion either.

It's in tiny eyestrain font and has paragraphs like every thirty lines and no line spacing, it's absurdly hard to read. And I am not reading it.

I'm sure you can find a better summary than a four thousand word essay.

I summarized above that amendment 2 is there for enemies foreign and domestic. The only real way to ban or limit gun possession in the U.S. is to repeal amendment 2. Anything else is bollocks. If you want "gun control" just say you want a convention to repeal the 2nd amendment. That's all I am saying.