Are gun laws constitutional?

[Potthan]

Let's sit down and actually discuss this. Quoting the excerpt from the 2nd amendment, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Now law books aren't like religious texts, they aren't up for interpretation. We all know they meant all arms. Many would argue the point that they didn't know how firearms would be now, but one would have to think... They knew at some point whether it be in the near or distant future that firearms would surpass the power that their imagination could express. Additionally, many wrongly argue that it was made for people to combat and defend themselves against criminals and that "an AR-15 is overkill." However, the 2nd amendment was placed to keep the citizens of America armed in case another revolution or a coup was deemed necessary by the majority. This is populism 101.

However the discussion doesn't stop there. What if it's a evenly disputed matter whether the government is tyrannical (IE today.)? Well obviously a whole coup would be not only ridiculous but honestly would lead to more tyranny. Plus although the United States government has killed it's own citizens, many of these claims aren't proven with hard evidence and most evidence to support these claims come from unrepeatable sources. However an armed population does in fact help with crime rates. Despite common liberal anti-gun claims, states with stricter gun laws have more crime.

So what do you guys think? Are the gun laws justified to keep control and keep arms out of the hands of radicals or do you believe that if everyone is armed that the good guys will be able to fend off the crazy and bad guys?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Scrap the NFA, GCA and Hughes Amendment.

'nuff said.

[Potthan]

Scrap the NFA, GCA and Hughes Amendment.

'nuff said.

I like your style

[Potthan]

Scrap the NFA, GCA and Hughes Amendment.

'nuff said.

Let's also not forget the removal of the ATF. Or at the the "F" in ATF.

[The Widening Gyre]

We all know they meant all arms. Many would argue the point that they didn't know how firearms would be now, but one would have to think... They knew at some point whether it be in the near or distant future that firearms would surpass the power that their imagination could express.

Oh, you've managed to get a hold of ol' Ben and the gang on the line with your Ouija board have you? Fantastic! I'm sure we all have many questions to ask them.

However, the 2nd amendment was placed to keep the citizens of America armed in case another revolution or a coup was deemed necessary by the majority. This is populism 101.

Or to put down slave revolts, which the Founders considered to be part and parcel of maintaining order. Lets not forget that.

Despite common liberal anti-gun claims, states with stricter gun laws have more crime.

They also tend to have more people and larger urban areas. Statistics: It's A Thing.

[Athrax]

Everything is a matter of degrees. Just like the first amendment, the second amendment is not absolute. Private citizens can't gain access to nuclear arms, of course, and the list goes down from there. If you want to question the constitutional merit of an individual law, then do so. But to question the idea of the government being able to place any regulation is just asinine

[Staniel]

What kind of question is this?

If one read the Second Amendment fully, the right to bear arms means that you have the right to arm yourself in case of a governmental tyranny and that you can create a local and well-regulated Militia to defend ourselves.

[Corindia]

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

The role of local militias has been subsumed by the National Guard, who are armed. It's not as much that guns have gotten more powerful and are beyond what was imaginable at the time, but that the structure and execution of modern warfare is fundamentally different and, at least in developed countries, does not involve 'minutemen' style militias.

[Kash Island]

We all know they meant all arms. Many would argue the point that they didn't know how firearms would be now, but one would have to think... They knew at some point whether it be in the near or distant future that firearms would surpass the power that their imagination could express.

Oh, you've managed to get a hold of ol' Ben and the gang on the line with your Ouija board have you? Fantastic! I'm sure we all have many questions to ask them.

However, the 2nd amendment was placed to keep the citizens of America armed in case another revolution or a coup was deemed necessary by the majority. This is populism 101.

Or to put down slave revolts, which the Founders considered to be part and parcel of maintaining order. Lets not forget that.

Despite common liberal anti-gun claims, states with stricter gun laws have more crime.

They also tend to have more people and larger urban areas. Statistics: It's A Thing.

that's wierd, it's almost as if I live in Washington where we CCW and yet Seattle isn't having the ridiculous shootings that Chicago has...

[Galloism]

Now law books aren't like religious texts, they aren't up for interpretation.

I laughed.

[Athrax]

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

The role of local militias has been subsumed by the National Guard, who are armed. It's not as much that guns have gotten more powerful and are beyond what was imaginable at the time, but that the structure and execution of modern warfare is fundamentally different and, at least in developed countries, does not involve 'minutemen' style militias.

Technically the part about well regulated milita is not operative, just a statement of purpose. The "shall not be infringed" is much more important from an active lawmaking perspective. The problem comes from the statue being archaic

[Ngelmish]

Nobody (alright, very few people) believes in the premise of no gun laws. Even the most ardent supporters of unregulated gun rights cite the 2nd Amendment as a legal privilege at the times that they aren't waxing warm about unregulated gun rights being a human right. Ergo, there's no serious stance for no gun laws.

As to the current debates about what regulations are appropriate to what degree, even the current jurisprudence of the Supreme Court holds that there are some, murky, limitations on gun rights that are both appropriate and legal going back to Heller.

So the short answer is that even by the most unabashedly pro-gun reading of the 2nd Amendment, yes. Gun laws are constitutional in general, even if not in particular.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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

The role of local militias has been subsumed by the National Guard, who are armed. It's not as much that guns have gotten more powerful and are beyond what was imaginable at the time, but that the structure and execution of modern warfare is fundamentally different and, at least in developed countries, does not involve 'minutemen' style militias.

The prefatory clause doesn't limit the operative clause. Also daily reminder the militia is a crazy huge amount of people.

[Kash Island]

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

The role of local militias has been subsumed by the National Guard, who are armed. It's not as much that guns have gotten more powerful and are beyond what was imaginable at the time, but that the structure and execution of modern warfare is fundamentally different and, at least in developed countries, does not involve 'minutemen' style militias.

The prefatory clause doesn't limit the operative clause. Also daily reminder the militia is a crazy huge amount of people.

people also seem to forget that it says the people have the right to bear arms...not the militia, it just so happens to help the militia.

[Potthan]

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

The role of local militias has been subsumed by the National Guard, who are armed. It's not as much that guns have gotten more powerful and are beyond what was imaginable at the time, but that the structure and execution of modern warfare is fundamentally different and, at least in developed countries, does not involve 'minutemen' style militias.

I beg to differ. With proper guidance and putting the right people in the right places militias could very well be a thing in America.

Oh, you've managed to get a hold of ol' Ben and the gang on the line with your Ouija board have you? Fantastic! I'm sure we all have many questions to ask them.



Or to put down slave revolts, which the Founders considered to be part and parcel of maintaining order. Lets not forget that.


I grew up in Houston, and there isn't nearly as much shooting or stabbing there as there is in Chicago or Los Angeles.

They also tend to have more people and larger urban areas. Statistics: It's A Thing.

that's wierd, it's almost as if I live in Washington where we CCW and yet Seattle isn't having the ridiculous shootings that Chicago has...

[Athrax]

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

The role of local militias has been subsumed by the National Guard, who are armed. It's not as much that guns have gotten more powerful and are beyond what was imaginable at the time, but that the structure and execution of modern warfare is fundamentally different and, at least in developed countries, does not involve 'minutemen' style militias.

I beg to differ. With proper guidance and putting the right people in the right places militias could very well be a thing in America./quote]

You'd be begging to differ against years of American jurisprudence extending as far as from the Supreme Court, then

[AiliailiA]

Let's sit down and actually discuss this. ...

Or not. The constitution does not specify guns it specifies arms. Claiming neither state nor federal government can pass laws to regulate the ownership of nuclear fucking weapons is prima facie absurd.

Are we done here?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Nobody (alright, very few people) believes in the premise of no gun laws. Even the most ardent supporters of unregulated gun rights cite the 2nd Amendment as a legal privilege at the times that they aren't waxing warm about unregulated gun rights being a human right. Ergo, there's no serious stance for no gun laws.

As to the current debates about what regulations are appropriate to what degree, even the current jurisprudence of the Supreme Court holds that there are some, murky, limitations on gun rights that are both appropriate and legal going back to Heller.

So the short answer is that even by the most unabashedly pro-gun reading of the 2nd Amendment, yes. Gun laws are constitutional in general, even if not in particular.

While the court hasn't taken up any real 2A cases since Heller (thanks Kennedy) it is worth pointing out that in Caetano in 2016 the court did say that the 2A extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, including things that didn't exist back in the day.

If/when Kennedy is replaced and a more friendly 2A justice is put on the court I could see that logic being expanded and used to strike down quite a few things.

[Ngelmish]

Nobody (alright, very few people) believes in the premise of no gun laws. Even the most ardent supporters of unregulated gun rights cite the 2nd Amendment as a legal privilege at the times that they aren't waxing warm about unregulated gun rights being a human right. Ergo, there's no serious stance for no gun laws.

As to the current debates about what regulations are appropriate to what degree, even the current jurisprudence of the Supreme Court holds that there are some, murky, limitations on gun rights that are both appropriate and legal going back to Heller.

So the short answer is that even by the most unabashedly pro-gun reading of the 2nd Amendment, yes. Gun laws are constitutional in general, even if not in particular.

While the court hasn't taken up any real 2A cases since Heller (thanks Kennedy) it is worth pointing out that in Caetano in 2016 the court did say that the 2A extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, including things that didn't exist back in the day.

If/when Kennedy is replaced and a more friendly 2A justice is put on the court I could see that logic being expanded and used to strike down quite a few things.

Which still doesn't invalidate the fact that the whole premise of deregulating on the basis of the 2A is that there is an appropriate legal framework to deal with the question of guns, even if it's fewer laws they are still laws. The question is loaded to the point of being facile.

[Veganopia]

No. Everyone should have a gun exsept those in jail

[Galloism]

Let's sit down and actually discuss this. ...

Or not. The constitution does not specify guns it specifies arms. Claiming neither state nor federal government can pass laws to regulate the ownership of nuclear fucking weapons is prima facie absurd.

Are we done here?

Why do you hate freedom?

[The Government of Hungarian Unity]

What kind of question is this?

If one read the Second Amendment fully, the right to bear arms means that you have the right to arm yourself in case of a governmental tyranny and that you can create a local and well-regulated Militia to defend ourselves.

That's the thing about governments all over the world, it doesn't matter if they're left, right, middle or anywhere in between. Politicians are all not to be trusted, this has been the case for thousands of years, earliest example I can think of is when Caesar was stabbed to death before becoming Emperor of the Roman Empire/Republic. Another case would be Hitler and Germany, when it was the Weimar republic they had fairly decent gun rights, Hitler came in and did away with that. Of course the result was a society in which neighbors informed on each other, whole families did so too. This was also the case in Soviet Russia. So you see, if the people are without weapons and ammunition it increases the chance for such governments like Hitler's or the Bolsheviks to rise to power. It doesn't matter how "civilized" we become, humans are the most dangerous creatures on earth, we can lie straight to each others faces and stab each other in the back as we see fit. Having guns is essential for our own survival, and I know someone's going to say in another post in relation to mine "But the objective is to lower violent crime rates" or something like that, crimes can be committed if someone wants to badly enough, if not with a gun then they'll do it with a knife, if not with a knife then they'll use whatever other means they may have at their disposal, us humans are naturally a violent species, for thousands of years one of the few things we've actually done of note is find more advanced ways of killing each other off, whether it have been with spears of bone, wood and rock, bronze, steel, or even the environment around us it will never change as far as I can tell. So if having guns is an improvement to one's survival chances on this planet then so be it.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Depends on the law, if it's an outright ban then no, it's not constitutional.

What kind of question is this?

If one read the Second Amendment fully, the right to bear arms means that you have the right to arm yourself in case of a governmental tyranny and that you can create a local and well-regulated Militia to defend ourselves.

I don't think the 2nd amendment was written to arm people against a tyrannical government. I think it was written to arm people and to allow the formation of militias to defend the country against foreign invasion, considering the fact that the regular US Army was practically just a skeleton crew at the time of ratification.

[Ifreann]

A drunk stumbling down the street, trying to spin a gun on their finger.

A child with a fist full of birthday money, just tall enough to see over the counter at the gun store.

A criminal who just served their sentence for attempted murder and threatening the judge, jury, and prosecutor, plenty tall enough to see over the counter.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Depends on the law, if it's an outright ban then no, it's not constitutional.

What kind of question is this?

If one read the Second Amendment fully, the right to bear arms means that you have the right to arm yourself in case of a governmental tyranny and that you can create a local and well-regulated Militia to defend ourselves.

I don't think the 2nd amendment was written to arm people against a tyrannical government. I think it was written to arm people and to allow the formation of militias to defend the country against foreign invasion, considering the fact that the regular US Army was practically just a skeleton crew at the time of ratification.

I'd say both are fair reasons for why the 2A was written. If I'm not mistaken there is after all quite a bit in the Federalist Papers about the citizenry being armed to fight the government should the need arise.