This is why we need to stop being such douchebags about gun violence research

[Siege]

I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

The founding fathers, in one of the whatever they wrote with their comments, said that the militia means everybody in America that does not work for the gruberment.

Well regulated in the times parlance meant well stocked, well supplied.

I'll have to dig it out were they say the militia is everyone not in the government. I know is not the federalist papers.

Also, when Washington was asked what weapons, his answer was " the full equipment of war" or something to that effect.

[Razgovory]

Okay, Siege, breath, think, then post.

[CountDeMoney]

Just spent all day in live fires, building clearing. Active shooter drills with simunitions. Drilled a dude in the dick with a three round burst. 

Those 15 mph speed bumps on base thank you for your service.

[Razgovory]

The founding fathers, in one of the whatever they wrote with their comments, said that the militia means everybody in America that does not work for the gruberment.

I'm kind of partial to this one.  You can't fake this kind of combination of ignorance and insanity.  As a purveyor of both, I have to respect it.

[LaCroix]

iirc, "militia" means militia in the military sense. but the idea was we wanted militia that anyone could join. i.e., we didn't want congress to pick and choose who could become militiamen. this meant everyone should have the right to become militia. so while, technically, only militiamen's right/keep arms were codified in the second amendment, the underlying principle that everyone should have the right to bear/keep arms that brought about the codified language means the second amendment protects the right to own guns.

[11B4V]

Just spent all day in live fires, building clearing. Active shooter drills with simunitions. Drilled a dude in the dick with a three round burst. 

Those 15 mph speed bumps on base thank you for your service.

Eat duck Yum Yum boy.

[CountDeMoney]

Just spent all day in live fires, building clearing. Active shooter drills with simunitions. Drilled a dude in the dick with a three round burst. 

Those 15 mph speed bumps on base thank you for your service.

Eat duck Yum Yum boy.

I'd say go through your windshield and die in a head-on collision, but hey, those 15 mph speed bumps save lives.

[katmai]

Okay, Siege, breath, think, then post.

Why the fuck would he start now?

[The Minsky Moment]

The truth is that there wasn't a lot of discussion and debate on the Second Amendment, so it is not and never well be entirely clear what the intent was.  That's a problem for originalists - who are commited to interpreting everything according to original intent.  They are stuck plunging into the weeds of the history of the English common law, historical colonial practice, ratification debates over state constitutions, etc.  It's not as much of a problem for sensible people who are not originalists.  What the drafters of a constitutional provision may have intended or though is an interesting interpretive datum, but why should it be determinative?  It's quite possible that the drafters of the 14th amendment were OK with the principles of "separate but equal" ultimately enunciated in Plessy; experience, however, demonstrated the shortcomings of that formula and so it was discarded.  The fact that many of the people who voted for the 14 amendment may have been horrified by Brown v. Board shouldn't matter.

The historical underpinning of the Second is thus an interesting *historical* question but not a critical legal one.  If the question is say a proposed ban on certain large capacity magazines, I can say with a good degree of confidence that the drafters of the Bill of Rights and the ratifiers had no opinion to offer on that subject.  It is up to us today to figure out and decide what the ambiguous language of the text does and should mean.  In the contemporary era the two main views have been: (a) the Second should be viewed as an historical anachronism with little present day application and can and should be limited in its preclusive effect, and (b) the Second should be given meaningful effect by interpreting to be a personal right in line with the personal rights its sister amendments.  Both of these views are IMO defensible legal interpretations, even though I suspect neither are in line with the 18th century era historical intent.  View (a) dominated throughout much of the 20th century until view (b) took over in Heller.

[mongers]

Interesting that it appears the killer of our MP had to resort to buying/importing a US survialist/White power magazine or guide, to tell him how to make an crude, improvised gun.

At least that appears to be the case given how the description of an eye witness closely matches the illustration in the guide.







It's that hard to find an illegal gun in the UK, I think this means our gun control laws are working?

[viper37]

I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

The founding fathers, in one of the whatever they wrote with their comments, said that the militia means everybody in America that does not work for the gruberment.

Well regulated in the times parlance meant well stocked, well supplied.

I'll have to dig it out were they say the militia is everyone not in the government. I know is not the federalist papers.

Also, when Washington was asked what weapons, his answer was " the full equipment of war" or something to that effect.

than that means Americans should be allowed to posess tanks, airplanes, missiles, ballistic submarines?

[lustindarkness]

I'd like to have me a tank, maybe an attack sub (yellow of course).

[grumbler]

I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

The founding fathers, in one of the whatever they wrote with their comments, said that the militia means everybody in America that does not work for the gruberment.

Well regulated in the times parlance meant well stocked, well supplied.

I'll have to dig it out were they say the militia is everyone not in the government. I know is not the federalist papers.

Also, when Washington was asked what weapons, his answer was " the full equipment of war" or something to that effect.

The well-regulated militia is described in the Federalist papers.  It is officered by state appointment, has uniforms and equipment, and is trained to a standard not much inferior to that of a regular soldier.  It is quite clearly the National Guard that the Second Amendment refers to when it talks about the well-regulated militia.  The reference to 'the people" here is reminiscent of the reference in "We, the People" in the preamble to the constitution.

The "militia of the whole" was dismissed by the Federalists as a guarantor of the peoples' liberties because it had proven in the Revolutionary War to be incapable of standing up to a regular army.  That is precisely why they wanted to ensure the establishment and maintenance of a well-regulated militia like today's National Guard.

[Valmy]

Is there some kind of movement to rebrand the proper, gentlemanly, and rather conservative Washington as some kind of rabble rousing anarchist? First Raz's rather bizarre thing he saw on Facebook and now Siege's Washington quote. Granted that is a rather small sample.

[The Brain]

Is there some kind of movement to rebrand the proper, gentlemanly, and rather conservative Washington as some kind of rabble rousing anarchist? First Raz's rather bizarre thing he saw on Facebook and now Siege's Washington quote. Granted that is a rather small sample.

Not sure if serious.