NATION

PASSWORD

Gun Control III - the Gunnening

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Gun Control n Stuff - Only 2 Options Pick Carefully

If my neighbors dog craps on my lawn I have a god-given right to respond with the use of force up to and including recreational nuclear warheads
552
51%
Guns are literally the embodiment of all evil ever created by mankind, and when the last gun is finally destroyed the entire world will be at peace
169
16%
I'm lame and choose not to use a poll with wild stereotypes about both sides because I'm lame
363
33%
 
Total votes : 1084

User avatar
Len Hyet
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10701
Founded: Jun 25, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Len Hyet » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:58 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:Other people: "Why isn't Libertarianism more mainstream?"

Me: "Man booed at Libertarian conference for saying you should not be able to sell heroin to a 5-year old"


What is wrong with those people?

An-caps probably. Most people were cheering him, for what it's worth. Still though.
=][= Founder, 1st NSG Irregulars. Our Militia is Well Regulated and Well Lubricated!

On a recently declared one-man campaign to elevate the discourse of you heathens.

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30904
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:01 pm

Len Hyet wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
What is wrong with those people?

An-caps probably. Most people were cheering him, for what it's worth. Still though.


I'm assuming you think that firearms should only be sold to adults?

User avatar
Napkiraly
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37450
Founded: Aug 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Napkiraly » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:01 pm

Thermodolia wrote:
Valrifell wrote:NYC is not an authoritarian shithole because they have laws you disagree with and restrict a right you feel is completely inalienable.

Its exaggeration at best and another shitty attempt to demonize the other at worst.

They banned drinks over 16oz. That’s the very definition of being authoritarian

Worse actually, it's totalitarian.

User avatar
Len Hyet
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10701
Founded: Jun 25, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Len Hyet » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:02 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:An-caps probably. Most people were cheering him, for what it's worth. Still though.


I'm assuming you think that firearms should only be sold to adults?

Yes, with the caveat that if a parent or legal guardian wants to gift a firearm to their children, they should be allowed to do so.
=][= Founder, 1st NSG Irregulars. Our Militia is Well Regulated and Well Lubricated!

On a recently declared one-man campaign to elevate the discourse of you heathens.

User avatar
Kowani
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6973
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:34 pm

Len Hyet wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
I'm assuming you think that firearms should only be sold to adults?

Yes, with the caveat that if a parent or legal guardian wants to gift a firearm to their children, they should be allowed to do so.

How old are these children? I wouldn’t trust 5 year old me with a big stick, much less a firearm.
Narcissistic (Hedonistic) Nihilist. Yes, I am edgy. I know.
Dorgival R. Seč of the NS Parliament!
Atheist and still proud of it. Technophile to the extreme.
Post-Capitalist, Post-Nationalist. Go beyond.
Oh, and a Pragmatist. Somehow.
Rights are functionally just privileges society has deemed important.
Neanderthaland wrote:
Christian Confederation wrote:Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

User avatar
Len Hyet
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10701
Founded: Jun 25, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Len Hyet » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:35 pm

Kowani wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:Yes, with the caveat that if a parent or legal guardian wants to gift a firearm to their children, they should be allowed to do so.

How old are these children? I wouldn’t trust 5 year old me with a big stick, much less a firearm.

I'd lean towards parent's discretion, though I can see an argument for a minimum age of like 12.
=][= Founder, 1st NSG Irregulars. Our Militia is Well Regulated and Well Lubricated!

On a recently declared one-man campaign to elevate the discourse of you heathens.

User avatar
Kowani
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6973
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:40 pm

Len Hyet wrote:
Kowani wrote:How old are these children? I wouldn’t trust 5 year old me with a big stick, much less a firearm.

I'd lean towards parent's discretion, though I can see an argument for a minimum age of like 12.

I mean, I wouldn’t trust 12 year old me either, but 12 year old me was fuckin’ stupid. But if we’re gonna give guns to children, 12 seems at least acceptable. (We’re still not letting tem bring them to school though.)
Narcissistic (Hedonistic) Nihilist. Yes, I am edgy. I know.
Dorgival R. Seč of the NS Parliament!
Atheist and still proud of it. Technophile to the extreme.
Post-Capitalist, Post-Nationalist. Go beyond.
Oh, and a Pragmatist. Somehow.
Rights are functionally just privileges society has deemed important.
Neanderthaland wrote:
Christian Confederation wrote:Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

User avatar
Napkiraly
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37450
Founded: Aug 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Napkiraly » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:52 pm

Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

User avatar
Kowani
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6973
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:27 pm

Napkiraly wrote:Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

:rofl: :rofl:
I want some of whatever you’re smoking so I can burn a fields where it goes.
Narcissistic (Hedonistic) Nihilist. Yes, I am edgy. I know.
Dorgival R. Seč of the NS Parliament!
Atheist and still proud of it. Technophile to the extreme.
Post-Capitalist, Post-Nationalist. Go beyond.
Oh, and a Pragmatist. Somehow.
Rights are functionally just privileges society has deemed important.
Neanderthaland wrote:
Christian Confederation wrote:Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11203
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:10 am

Napkiraly wrote:Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

I actually agree unsarcasticly.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11203
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:11 am

Kowani wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:I'd lean towards parent's discretion, though I can see an argument for a minimum age of like 12.

I mean, I wouldn’t trust 12 year old me either, but 12 year old me was fuckin’ stupid. But if we’re gonna give guns to children, 12 seems at least acceptable. (We’re still not letting tem bring them to school though.)

Why not? I support concealed carry everywhere; schools, banks, aircraft cabins.

User avatar
Napkiraly
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37450
Founded: Aug 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Napkiraly » Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:55 am

Kowani wrote:
Napkiraly wrote:Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

:rofl: :rofl:
I want some of whatever you’re smoking

I don't smoke. I don't even touch large amounts of alcohol.

User avatar
Kowani
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6973
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:03 am

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Kowani wrote:I mean, I wouldn’t trust 12 year old me either, but 12 year old me was fuckin’ stupid. But if we’re gonna give guns to children, 12 seems at least acceptable. (We’re still not letting tem bring them to school though.)

Why not? I support concealed carry everywhere; schools, banks, aircraft cabins.

Y’aee, this is why gun control supports laugh at you.
(We may not know every type of gun inside and out, but goddamn if we don’t know that guns have no place in any of the places you named.
Narcissistic (Hedonistic) Nihilist. Yes, I am edgy. I know.
Dorgival R. Seč of the NS Parliament!
Atheist and still proud of it. Technophile to the extreme.
Post-Capitalist, Post-Nationalist. Go beyond.
Oh, and a Pragmatist. Somehow.
Rights are functionally just privileges society has deemed important.
Neanderthaland wrote:
Christian Confederation wrote:Contraception can't fail if you don't have sex in term no unwanted pregnancy.

Your entire religion is based on the idea that this isn't true.

User avatar
Paddy O Fernature
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9291
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Paddy O Fernature » Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:07 am

Kowani wrote:
Napkiraly wrote:Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

:rofl: :rofl:
I want some of whatever you’re smoking so I can burn a fields where it goes.


A-we will end your week just like a Sunday!

Also, anyone know if there is any truth to this picture making it's way around Reddit atm?
Last edited by Paddy O Fernature on Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Proud Co-Founder of The Axis Commonwealth - Would you like to know more?
Mallorea and Riva should resign
SJW! Why? Some nobody on the internet who has never met me accused me of being one, so it absolutely MUST be true! *Nod Nod*

User avatar
The Empire of Pretantia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38580
Founded: Oct 18, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Empire of Pretantia » Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:31 am

Kowani wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Why not? I support concealed carry everywhere; schools, banks, aircraft cabins.

Y’aee, this is why gun control supports laugh at you.
(We may not know every type of gun inside and out, but goddamn if we don’t know that guns have no place in any of the places you named.

Why should we care what the laughing stock laughs at? They're the laughing stock because they don't know what they're talking about.
ywn be as good as this video
Gacha
Trashing other people's waifus
Anti-NN
EA
Douche flutes
Zimbabwe
Putting the toilet paper roll the wrong way
Every single square inch of Asia
Lewding Earth-chan
Pollution
4Chan in all its glory and all its horror
Playing the little Switch controller handheld thing in public
Treading on me
Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and all their cousins and sisters and brothers and wife's sons
Alternate Universe 40K
Nightcore
Comcast
Zimbabwe
Believing the Ottomans were the third Roman Empire
Parodies of the Gadsden flag
The Fate Series
US politics

User avatar
Crockerland
Senator
 
Posts: 4498
Founded: Oct 15, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Crockerland » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:03 am

Image

My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property, it's over for you, gun-supporters 8) 8)
I'm Gay. Not "queer" or any other offensive slurs that you think are omg so cute and quirky.
PROUD SUPPORTER OF:
National Liberalism, Nuclear & Geothermal Power, GMOs, Vaccines, Self-defense/gun rights, Biodiesel, Gay marriage, Transgender rights, Universal healthcare, Constitutional Carry, Emotional Support Twinks

US presidents 1796-2016 ranked / Worst of the UN / On the NRA and GOA / Strip the Wounded Knee murderers of the Medal of Honor / Is it Still Gay if the Boy is Cute?
"Freedom means freedom for everyone." -Former acting president Dick Cheney on gay marriage

User avatar
Huntpublic
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 474
Founded: Mar 21, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Huntpublic » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:08 am

Crockerland wrote:(Image)

My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property, it's over for you, gun-supporters 8) 8)


I'm trying to figure this post out. Your wife's boyfriend... hmmm....

But dang it, you got us, they found the loophole!
Last edited by Huntpublic on Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
HUNTPUBLIC TIMES: The Huntpublican Military has joined the NATO planned Trident Juncture 2018, it's Amphibious Assault Forces will be working closely with U.S. Marines in a simulated naval invasion of Norway, 
more photos and videos to come!

User avatar
Paddy O Fernature
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9291
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Paddy O Fernature » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:08 am

Crockerland wrote:(Image)

My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property, it's over for you, gun-supporters 8) 8)


Crockerland wrote:My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property


Crockerland wrote:My wife's boyfriend helped me


Image
Last edited by Paddy O Fernature on Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:14 am, edited 2 times in total.

Proud Co-Founder of The Axis Commonwealth - Would you like to know more?
Mallorea and Riva should resign
SJW! Why? Some nobody on the internet who has never met me accused me of being one, so it absolutely MUST be true! *Nod Nod*

User avatar
Len Hyet
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10701
Founded: Jun 25, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Len Hyet » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:40 am

Crockerland wrote:(Image)

My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property, it's over for you, gun-supporters 8) 8)

Keep the tism in WG damn it, you're leaking
=][= Founder, 1st NSG Irregulars. Our Militia is Well Regulated and Well Lubricated!

On a recently declared one-man campaign to elevate the discourse of you heathens.

User avatar
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53363
Founded: Antiquity
Father Knows Best State

Postby Big Jim P » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:15 am

Kowani wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:Yes, with the caveat that if a parent or legal guardian wants to gift a firearm to their children, they should be allowed to do so.

How old are these children? I wouldn’t trust 5 year old me with a big stick, much less a firearm.


I started shooting around five or so.

User avatar
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53363
Founded: Antiquity
Father Knows Best State

Postby Big Jim P » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:18 am

Crockerland wrote:(Image)

My wife's boyfriend helped me put some of these bad boys all around my property, it's over for you, gun-supporters 8) 8)


Wouldn't work in Texas. It doesn't meet the 30.06 or 30.07 standard.

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Post Czar
 
Posts: 39958
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:30 pm

Alright so I'm tired of all this bullshit regarding the "durr durr well regulated militia : D" garbage so I'm gonna make another effortpost that can be linked to whenever someone wants to regurgitate some nonsensical talking points.

A common talking point amongst anti gun folks is that pro-gun people willfully ignore the prefatory clause of the second amendment. As you well know that reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Ignoring for the moment that this is simply a prefatory statement we need to break down what it actually means. "Well regulated" as an adjective in the 1600-1800's was commonly understood to refer to things like proper discipline and being in working order and there's several examples to be found of it demonstrating such:

"If a liberal Education has formed in us well regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


"The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world."


"It appeared to her well regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."


Those are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and range from the early 1700's to the 1860's, though there are earlier and later cases as well. The phrase didn't come to mean government regulation until much later and thus obviously had no bearing on what Madison wrote in the 1700's.

Another important part of judicial history that needs to be taken into account is the 18th century English case Copeman v Gallant which stated that “the preamble could not be used to restrict the effect of the words of the purview". Whilst our English cousins would change this a hundred years later to lend more credence and importance to preambles this has never changed in American jurisprudence and thus the settled law in the United States is that the preamble has no control over the operative clauses of anything.

Another common misconception is the second amendment is unique in its usage of a prefatory clause. Whilst this is true for the federal bill of rights it is not true of America as a whole at the time.

Rhode Island, 1842 wrote:The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty


New Hampshire, 1784 wrote:In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed


Massachusetts, 1780 wrote:The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.


The thing all of these have in common with the second amendment is that each has a prefatory clause that serves as nothing more than an introduction and reason as to why the right exists. None of them create arbitrary lines on whom the right applies to.

Lets go a bit further and see what the states had to say about the masses owning weaponry shall we?

Pennsylvania Declaration of rights wrote:That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


Vermont Declaration of rights wrote:That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of themselves and the State: and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.


Kentucky Declaration of rights wrote:The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.


Missouri bill of rights wrote:That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.


Starting to notice a pattern? Odd how if the right was only supposed to apply to members of the militia that everyone everywhere made sure to extend that right to the entire citizenry.

Oh lets also not forget that DC v Heller was not the massive precedent upsetter that the gun control lobby likes to label it as. Lets dive into a bit of SCOTUS history!

Dred Scott v Sanford wrote:“It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”


Huh, if the second amendment applied only to members of the militia why would it immediately give "persons of the Negro race" the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went in addition to all those other ones? I'll tell you why, it's because it's always been understood that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms just as all the other amendments dealing with individual rights do. But lets go a bit further.

US v Cruikshank wrote:“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”


This particular bit is commonly held up as proof that the second amendment doesn't protect the right to bear arms by those who fail to understand what it's saying. Whether you agree with it or not the foundation of our nation was based in the idea of natural rights and Cruikshank affirms that belief. What the court is saying there is that people naturally have the right to bear arms and that all the second amendment does is restrict the power of the national government (this was before incorporation under the 14A really began but this has since been extended to the states as well in McDonald v Chicago) to infringe upon and restrict that right.

Practically the entire basis of the "collective right" theory that anti-gunners love to spout originated in 1939 with US v Miller. Miller was a dude who had a short barrel shotgun that was not registered with the recently passed National Firearms Act and when caught brought a case against the government alleging it violated the second amendment. I'll spare you all the boring details but this case was absurdly shady and filled with so much BS that it should be thrown out entirely. Miller died before the hearing at SCOTUS started and his lawyer went missing thus leaving only one party present. FDR's administration then flexed it's muscles and put lots of pressure on the court to rule in their favor and uphold the NFA, which they did by claiming that short barrel shotguns had no militarily relevant usage (an objectively false statement too, they were widely used by the Army) and that the government could regulate them as a result. Of course this ruling works both ways given they indirectly said the second amendment also protects any weapons useful in a military context, which makes all the harping on about "military style semi automatic assault rifles" rather amusing.

So all in all the collective right theory has no basis in reality except for a single absurdly shady court case that has since been largely overturned. If anyone who likes to parrot the "muh militia" line would like to challenge any of this please feel free to.

potato
Angry American who likes guns and trees
Islamophobia is a virtue
Australian gun control didn't work. A rebuttal to the "well regulated militia" argument.

User avatar
Grinning Dragon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5790
Founded: May 16, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Grinning Dragon » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:15 am

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Alright so I'm tired of all this bullshit regarding the "durr durr well regulated militia : D" garbage so I'm gonna make another effortpost that can be linked to whenever someone wants to regurgitate some nonsensical talking points.

A common talking point amongst anti gun folks is that pro-gun people willfully ignore the prefatory clause of the second amendment. As you well know that reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Ignoring for the moment that this is simply a prefatory statement we need to break down what it actually means. "Well regulated" as an adjective in the 1600-1800's was commonly understood to refer to things like proper discipline and being in working order and there's several examples to be found of it demonstrating such:

"If a liberal Education has formed in us well regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


"The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world."


"It appeared to her well regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."


Those are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and range from the early 1700's to the 1860's, though there are earlier and later cases as well. The phrase didn't come to mean government regulation until much later and thus obviously had no bearing on what Madison wrote in the 1700's.

Another important part of judicial history that needs to be taken into account is the 18th century English case Copeman v Gallant which stated that “the preamble could not be used to restrict the effect of the words of the purview". Whilst our English cousins would change this a hundred years later to lend more credence and importance to preambles this has never changed in American jurisprudence and thus the settled law in the United States is that the preamble has no control over the operative clauses of anything.

Another common misconception is the second amendment is unique in its usage of a prefatory clause. Whilst this is true for the federal bill of rights it is not true of America as a whole at the time.

Rhode Island, 1842 wrote:The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty


New Hampshire, 1784 wrote:In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed


Massachusetts, 1780 wrote:The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.


The thing all of these have in common with the second amendment is that each has a prefatory clause that serves as nothing more than an introduction and reason as to why the right exists. None of them create arbitrary lines on whom the right applies to.

Lets go a bit further and see what the states had to say about the masses owning weaponry shall we?

Pennsylvania Declaration of rights wrote:That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


Vermont Declaration of rights wrote:That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of themselves and the State: and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.


Kentucky Declaration of rights wrote:The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.


Missouri bill of rights wrote:That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.


Starting to notice a pattern? Odd how if the right was only supposed to apply to members of the militia that everyone everywhere made sure to extend that right to the entire citizenry.

Oh lets also not forget that DC v Heller was not the massive precedent upsetter that the gun control lobby likes to label it as. Lets dive into a bit of SCOTUS history!

Dred Scott v Sanford wrote:“It would give to persons of the Negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”


Huh, if the second amendment applied only to members of the militia why would it immediately give "persons of the Negro race" the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went in addition to all those other ones? I'll tell you why, it's because it's always been understood that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms just as all the other amendments dealing with individual rights do. But lets go a bit further.

US v Cruikshank wrote:“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”


This particular bit is commonly held up as proof that the second amendment doesn't protect the right to bear arms by those who fail to understand what it's saying. Whether you agree with it or not the foundation of our nation was based in the idea of natural rights and Cruikshank affirms that belief. What the court is saying there is that people naturally have the right to bear arms and that all the second amendment does is restrict the power of the national government (this was before incorporation under the 14A really began but this has since been extended to the states as well in McDonald v Chicago) to infringe upon and restrict that right.

Practically the entire basis of the "collective right" theory that anti-gunners love to spout originated in 1939 with US v Miller. Miller was a dude who had a short barrel shotgun that was not registered with the recently passed National Firearms Act and when caught brought a case against the government alleging it violated the second amendment. I'll spare you all the boring details but this case was absurdly shady and filled with so much BS that it should be thrown out entirely. Miller died before the hearing at SCOTUS started and his lawyer went missing thus leaving only one party present. FDR's administration then flexed it's muscles and put lots of pressure on the court to rule in their favor and uphold the NFA, which they did by claiming that short barrel shotguns had no militarily relevant usage (an objectively false statement too, they were widely used by the Army) and that the government could regulate them as a result. Of course this ruling works both ways given they indirectly said the second amendment also protects any weapons useful in a military context, which makes all the harping on about "military style semi automatic assault rifles" rather amusing.

So all in all the collective right theory has no basis in reality except for a single absurdly shady court case that has since been largely overturned. If anyone who likes to parrot the "muh militia" lie would like to challenge any of this please feel free to.

potato


:clap: Well done WRA, well done.
I would like to add that many of the states at the time would not ratify a Constitution unless it contained an enumeration on the right to keep and bear arms.
Madison's first proposal on the right to keep and bear arms along with 18 other substantive items, were presented on June 8, 1789 to the house of representatives.
The first right to keep and bear arms amendment was presented as:
"that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no conscientious objector shall be compelled to render military service in person."

In this proposal the enumeration of the right itself was presented first as it was widely discussed among the representative of the other states that there were to be an enumeration of the right to keep and bear arms.

Madison's proposals were referred to a select committee that reported to the House, when it left committee it read:
A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person
religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.


The House debated on the last clause of the proposal:
Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of
the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power
to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

An amendment to remove the "religiously scrupulous" failed. When 17 articles of amendments were sent to the Senate, the Senate combined and streamlined some of the amendments, in regards to the right to keep and bear arms, the Senate omitted, "composed of the body of the people" and deleted the provision exempting conscientious objectors from service. The Senate rejected language that would have added the words, "for the common defense" as part of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (for the common defense) shall not be infringed.
Which bring us to the now adopted language of the 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.

With that said, I'd also like to point out that, New York, New Hampshire and Virginia would ratify a Constitution while expressing their understanding that the people had the right to keep and bear arms and that Congress would never disarm law abiding citizens. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify until individual rights to keep and bear arms were recognized in a Constitution.

Madison understood the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, and of the varying proposals until the final draft of the 2nd Amendment, it is quite clear Madison intended along with Congress and the states that ratified what became the 2nd Amendment understood the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, and those who ratified the Constitution along with Madison would have rejected the notion that "a well regulated militia" would in any way be a prerequisite upon an individual right to keep and bear arms.
I prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery! Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Gun-Control is the belief that declawing the cat will protect it against other animals; also why are anti-gun people so violent?
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery!
Socialism- the herpes of economic systems.
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead. Proud American infidel since the 1970's-Deus Vult
The made up term "toxic masculinity" is founded on nonsense psychologism

User avatar
Hurtful Thoughts
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5261
Founded: Sep 09, 2005
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Hurtful Thoughts » Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:32 pm

Kowani wrote:
Napkiraly wrote:Kids should be able to bring their legally obtained firearms to school. It would deter bullying and as a result school shootings would drop drastically.

:rofl: :rofl:
I want some of whatever you’re smoking so I can burn a fields where it goes.


That actually used to be the case in public schools back in the 60's right around the start of deer-season.

My dad even did a presentation on how to reload live ammunition in the classroom.

Followed by trap-shooting on the football-field.
Last edited by Hurtful Thoughts on Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Factbook and general referance thread.
HOI <- Storefront (WiP)
Due to population-cuts, military-size currently being revised

The People's Republic of Hurtful Thoughts is a gargantuan, environmentally stunning nation, ruled by Leader with an even hand, and renowned for its compulsory military service, multi-spousal wedding ceremonies, and smutty television.
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War

Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....

User avatar
Telconi
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23653
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:42 pm

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:
Kowani wrote: :rofl: :rofl:
I want some of whatever you’re smoking so I can burn a fields where it goes.


That actually used to be the case in public schools back in the 60's right around the start of deer-season.

My dad even did a presentation on how to reload live ammunition in the classroom.

Followed by trap-shooting on the football-field.


Shoot, my grandfather taught me to shoot with a revolver he bought for himself at 14, and carried to school every day in high school.
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arlenton, Aureumterra, Cannot think of a name, Che Triumphant, Cherad, Diopolis, Dumb Ideologies, Fartsniffage, First American Empire, Galloism, Geneviev, Godular, Google [Bot], Ifreann, Kuominwave, Luziyca, New yugoslavaia, Rojava Free State, Rykil, Scomagia, SD_Film Artists, Souseiseki, South Central Siberia, Star city1, Steam and Clockwork, Telconi, The Blaatschapen, The Black Forrest, The Emerald Legion, The Great Imperator Jeffrey, The Greater Ohio Valley, The New California Republic, Vassenor, Vetalia, Xmara

Advertisement

Remove ads