Languish.org

Assuming that the Supreme Court is right that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, would you be in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment?

Much better alternative than pretending it doesn't exist.

I don't like your premise for the answers given. :mellow:

I'm an American, and I do not think that we should repeal the 2nd amendment because I don't think that it will fix anything. I agree, in general, with allowing firearms, but I believe that there should be some restrictions. As in most things, I prefer a balanced approach rather than an absolute.

Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 11:10:26 AM
I don't like your premise for the answers given. :mellow:

Pretty sure they weren't serious.  It's just how we do polls here.

Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 11:10:26 AM
I don't like your premise for the answers given. :mellow:

I'm an American, and I do not think that we should repeal the 2nd amendment because I don't think that it will fix anything. I agree, in general, with allowing firearms, but I believe that there should be some restrictions. As in most things, I prefer a balanced approach rather than an absolute.

Pretty much +1

Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 11:10:26 AM
I don't like your premise for the answers given. :mellow:

I'm an American, and I do not think that we should repeal the 2nd amendment because I don't think that it will fix anything. I agree, in general, with allowing firearms, but I believe that there should be some restrictions. As in most things, I prefer a balanced approach rather than an absolute.

You know, repealing the 2nd would not automatically lead to a total ban on private firearms.  At least not in most states.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 11:15:15 AM

Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 11:10:26 AM
I don't like your premise for the answers given. :mellow:

I'm an American, and I do not think that we should repeal the 2nd amendment because I don't think that it will fix anything. I agree, in general, with allowing firearms, but I believe that there should be some restrictions. As in most things, I prefer a balanced approach rather than an absolute.

You know, repealing the 2nd would not automatically lead to a total ban on private firearms.  At least not in most states.

It would be easier for things to creep in that general direction, though.

Quote from: derspiess on December 26, 2012, 11:19:11 AM
It would be easier for things to creep in that general direction, though.

Of course it would.  It would throw gun regulation into the political arena.

I would certainly be in favor of repealing it - I don't think the right to own a weapon is in any way fundamental for human freedom, and would much rather be able to discuss and make decisions about appropriate private gun ownership without the basic concept having some special protection placed around it.

Nah, I'm uncomfortable fucking with the constitution.  We need a better reason then bothering some rednecks.

I don't really care for America's gun laws, but I would outlaw handguns here and require the population to hand them in. And all rifles unless you are a hunter in which case you may own rifles that are meant for hunting (shotguns or bolt-action rifles I guess).

Ideally, I would outlaw handguns and military-grade stuff.  Long rifles and shotguns can stay, since they are less likely to be used in common gun crimes due to lack of ability to conceal them.  I also think that citizens being able to defend themselves in their home is important for the sake of dignity, if nothing else, and in this day and age that requires a firearm.

A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything. I think the US should look at western societies which have similar levels of gun ownership (like norway, finland and switzerland) and/or have similar social and cultural issues (uk and canada) and learn from them.

You don't need to change the constitution (though I suppose changing the constitution was a place holder for doing some gun control) to do this. Everybody has a right to join the state militia, now, limit gun ownership to hunting and sporting weapons, secure those guns in hunting or marksmanship club houses and limit the owners to people who actually participate in these activities. This is how all of the above examples regulate guns.

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything. I think the US should look at western societies which have similar levels of gun ownership (like norway, finland and switzerland) and/or have similar social and cultural issues (uk and canada) and learn from them.

You don't need to change the constitution (though I suppose changing the constitution was a place holder for doing some gun control) to do this. Everybody has a right to join the state militia, now, limit gun ownership to hunting and sporting weapons, secure those guns in hunting or marksmanship club houses and limit the owners to people who actually participate in these activities. This is how all of the above examples regulate guns.

No.

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
You don't need to change the constitution (though I suppose changing the constitution was a place holder for doing some gun control) to do this. Everybody has a right to join the state militia, now, limit gun ownership to hunting and sporting weapons, secure those guns in hunting or marksmanship club houses and limit the owners to people who actually participate in these activities. This is how all of the above examples regulate guns.

Sometimes there are multiple state militias.

Typical euro bs

Quote from: 11B4V on December 26, 2012, 02:52:07 PM

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

Quote from: Berkut on December 26, 2012, 11:28:48 AM
I would certainly be in favor of repealing it - I don't think the right to own a weapon is in any way fundamental for human freedom, and would much rather be able to discuss and make decisions about appropriate private gun ownership without the basic concept having some special protection placed around it.

All well and good, but as others have alluded to isn't the genie now out of the bottle, the number of guns in circulation perhaps makes that an impractical policy route.

I haven't found any definitive figures for total small arms worldwide, but there seem to be some ball park figures that suggest an estimated 875million small arms world wide, police forces/internal security have 25million, the worlds militarys have 200 million and there's around 650 million weapons in civilians hands.

So if what 11BV4 and others are estimating is correct, the US population is now approaching owning every other civilian weapon in the world.

I don't see how you can reverse that huge accumulation of material without provoking a major crisis.

Looking at US domestic gun production, it seems to have topped 5 million a year, I don't suppose US military requirements are more than 5% of that and export seems low, so most of that is for replacement of and growth in the domestic stock levels. 

I don't know anything about US small arms imports, but is that a significant amount ?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 26, 2012, 03:02:10 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on December 26, 2012, 02:52:07 PM

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

Used in this context, it sounds like he's suggesting accidental discharges kill the owner more often than intruders get shot. Suicide numbers shouldn't really enter into the discussion at all.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 26, 2012, 03:02:10 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on December 26, 2012, 02:52:07 PM

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

I want him to back that statement up. Next.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 26, 2012, 03:02:10 PM
You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

Your mother.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 26, 2012, 03:22:40 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 26, 2012, 03:02:10 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on December 26, 2012, 02:52:07 PM

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

Used in this context, it sounds like he's suggesting accidental discharges kill the owner more often than intruders get shot. Suicide numbers shouldn't really enter into the discussion at all.

Except they should.  Without guns there would be less suicide attempts, and way less successful suicide attempts.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 26, 2012, 03:22:40 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 26, 2012, 03:02:10 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on December 26, 2012, 02:52:07 PM

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

Used in this context, it sounds like he's suggesting accidental discharges kill the owner more often than intruders get shot. Suicide numbers shouldn't really enter into the discussion at all.

I think it part it should, as it's such a successful method that requires very little planning.
An imperfect analogy is with the 19th century poison laws, introduced not to limit the number of murders(in truth a sensational few), but to cut down on the number of suicides.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 26, 2012, 03:22:40 PM
Used in this context, it sounds like he's suggesting accidental discharges kill the owner more often than intruders get shot. Suicide numbers shouldn't really enter into the discussion at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gun-control/2012/12/21/6ffe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html

QuoteGun murders grab headlines, but more Americans die every year from gun suicides than gun homicides. In 2009, for example, almost 11,500 Americans were killed by someone else with a gun, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but more than 18,000 killed themselves with a firearm.

Some may shrug and say that suicidal individuals without guns would simply turn to another method. This is wrong. Not only do numerous studies link the presence of guns to elevated suicide rates, but suicide by gun is far more lethal than other methods. The "success rate" of gun suicide is about 90 percent, compared with less than 30 percent for poisoning, for example. Firearms also require the least amount of persistence and effort; the ease of pulling a trigger makes a gun more appealing to those who act on impulse. And studies of suicide survivors find that only about one in 10 makes a second attempt.

Of course it should. Its ridiculously outdated, it is useless for its original purpose and has been for many many years, the only purpose it serves these days is standing in the way of sensible laws by letting people play the patriotic 'lets all worship the 200 year old piece of paper' card.

Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2012, 04:46:39 PM
Of course it should. Its ridiculously outdated, it is useless for its original purpose and has been for many many years, the only purpose it serves these days is standing in the way of sensible laws by letting people play the patriotic 'lets all worship the 200 year old piece of paper' card.

I'm just a little curious what you think it's original purpose was.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 04:52:53 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2012, 04:46:39 PM
Of course it should. Its ridiculously outdated, it is useless for its original purpose and has been for many many years, the only purpose it serves these days is standing in the way of sensible laws by letting people play the patriotic 'lets all worship the 200 year old piece of paper' card.

I'm just a little curious what you think it's original purpose was.

:unsure:
National defence?
Your post confuses me.

Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2012, 05:07:41 PM
Your post confuses me.

It wasn't intended to.  What can I do to alleviate this confusion?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 05:10:47 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2012, 05:07:41 PM
Your post confuses me.

It wasn't intended to.  What can I do to alleviate this confusion?

Give me pie.

I'm curious about why you're curious about that. Its common knowledge isn't it? Or are the folks who believe something different?

I wouldn't say it's common knowledge that the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for the national defense.

For example, if it's purpose was to provide for the national defense, why include it as a right that the federal government cannot infringe upon, rather than part of Congress' warmaking powers?

Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2012, 05:07:41 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 04:52:53 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2012, 04:46:39 PM
Of course it should. Its ridiculously outdated, it is useless for its original purpose and has been for many many years, the only purpose it serves these days is standing in the way of sensible laws by letting people play the patriotic 'lets all worship the 200 year old piece of paper' card.

I'm just a little curious what you think it's original purpose was.

:unsure:
National defence?
Your post confuses me.

An aspect of it. Not all of it.

Quote from: 11B4V on December 26, 2012, 03:25:22 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 26, 2012, 03:02:10 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on December 26, 2012, 02:52:07 PM

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 02:10:28 PM
A Handgun in the home is many orders of magnitude more likely to kill it's owner than to every be used to protect anything.

Provide something to back this up.

You know damned well what the numbers are regarding suicide by firearm in households with them in it, or are you playing Grammar NazYi with his use of adverbs?

I want him to back that statement up. Next.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

QuoteAbstract
OBJECTIVE:
Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.
METHODS:
We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

But, you are right 626/13 is not "multiple orders of magnitude" it is merely 1,47 orders of magnitude. Take away the legally justified shooting by police it is 626/10 or 1,51 orders of magnitude.

To put it in terms of US state size bad shootings correspond to the area of Texas, good shootings correspond to the area of Los Angeles County California or Connecticut State.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 05:15:32 PM
For example, if it's purpose was to provide for the national defense, why include it as a right that the federal government cannot infringe upon, rather than part of Congress' warmaking powers?

Because of the very strong views about the role of state militias vs. federal standing armies.

Quotehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

That's what i wanted instead of some washington post article. Thanks

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 05:15:32 PM
I wouldn't say it's common knowledge that the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for the national defense.

For example, if it's purpose was to provide for the national defense, why include it as a right that the federal government cannot infringe upon, rather than part of Congress' warmaking powers?

It wasn't provide for national defense. It was to provide for a defense of the freedom of the states. Ultimately it was a right of the states to keep a militia. Since this militia was assembled ad-hoc from scratch when needed this implies an individual right to bear arms.

To be blunt, if you want to push the militia angle then assault weapons should be the last ones to be banned.

Quote from: 11B4V on December 26, 2012, 05:40:34 PM

Quotehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

That's what i wanted instead of some washington post article. Thanks

Will this information influence your view on the subject in any way what so ever?

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 05:45:00 PM
It wasn't provide for national defense. It was to provide for a defense of the freedom of the states. Ultimately it was a right of the states to keep a militia. Since this militia was assembled ad-hoc from scratch when needed this implies an individual right to bear arms.

A little more detail . . .
The Constitutional draft was perceived by some to be biased in favor of federal power.  The role of the state militias in national defense was a hotly debated and dispute issues during the Revolution itself and its aftermath.  The Constitutional draft seemed to resolve those questions pretty firmly in favor of federal power - the federal government not only acquired a panoply of war and defense powers, it also via two militia clauses acquired extensive supervisory powers over the state militia, including the power to arm the militia.  But what would happen if Congress, in an effort to make the state militias wither away, refused to exercise their power to arm the militias?  Presumably the states could then act on their own provided of course that Congress did not prohibit them from doing so.  The clause concerned a lot of anti-federalists. 

I want to careful about ascribing clear motivations to the Second Amendment, because the lack of clear contemporaneous statements about its meaning and purpose is notorious.  But clearly an effect of the Second Amendment would be that the federal government would be unable to block citizens from bringing their own weapons for use in militia service, or block the states for providing that members of the militia could or should do so.  It is also clear that an interpretation that views this effect as the principal purpose of the Amendment fits nicely within the simple text, without excising any words or subclauses as mere surplusage.

The most obvious problem with that argument Joan, if that if you were starting from scratch and wished to guarantee the right of states to form militias, and that right alone, there is no way in hell you would choose that language.  States, not having appendages and opposable digits, can't bear arms.

Quote from: Viking on December 26, 2012, 05:46:56 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on December 26, 2012, 05:40:34 PM

Quotehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

That's what i wanted instead of some washington post article. Thanks

Will this information influence your view on the subject in any way what so ever?

No, but it does thin the gene pool.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 07:01:10 PM
The most obvious problem with that argument Joan, if that if you were starting from scratch and wished to guarantee the right of states to form militias, and that right alone, there is no way in hell you would choose that language.

Probably not.
But they weren't starting from scratch.  There was already a constitutional text, and the question was what to put into a Bill of Rights that would supplement but not replace that text.  Federalists would never agree to an amendment of the militia clauses but they could agree to accept an individual right as against the federal government that would have the effect of preventing the disarming the militias.

Would you mind linking or pasting the militia clauses?  I'd frankly never heard of them before.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 07:17:44 PM
Would you mind linking or pasting the militia clauses?  I'd frankly never heard of them before.

Under Art I, Section 8 (enumerated powers of Congress):

QuoteTo provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 07:17:44 PM
Would you mind linking or pasting the militia clauses?  I'd frankly never heard of them before.

Google us consitution text, and search within the document/text, they'll then show up.  :)

Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 07:24:07 PM
Google us consitution text, and search within the document/text, they'll then show up.  :)

Or ask Joan, then he'll do it.  :)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 07:29:47 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 07:24:07 PM
Google us consitution text, and search within the document/text, they'll then show up.  :)

Or ask Joan, then he'll do it.  :)

You're not big on leg work are you, please don't tell me you've an MBA ?  :P 

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

After reading the text it seems to me the same problem still remains Joan.

OK, so there was a debate at the time whether the power granted Congress to "discipline" the state militia could potentially result in Congress disarming/emasculating/otherwise rendering impotent the militias.  So they crafted an Amendment which enshrined the right of states to form/maintain armed militias.  Again, this does not seem like a particularly difficult abstraction to put into words, but they ended up with the 2nd Amendment instead.

And I'm going out on a limb now, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Constitution fairly explicit in all other cases where the right it is guaranteeing confer upon states and not individuals?

Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 07:40:01 PM
You're not big on leg work are you, please don't tell me you've an MBA ?  :P

Seriously mongers, I was trying to be polite, but what fucking business is it of yours?

I wouldn't. But I don't think it necessarily prohibits lots of gun control laws, so I don't think you'd need to.

Having said that I always avoid the US gun control threads because it's something where I think there's a cultural gap as much as anything. I'll never understand the US perspective on guns and chances are vice-versa, so it's just not terribly productive.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 07:49:13 PM
And I'm going out on a limb now, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Constitution fairly explicit in all other cases where the right it is guaranteeing confer upon states and not individuals?

I think any constitution that's 4000 or so words long is hardly likely to be terribly explicit about anything. That's probably why it's so durable.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2012, 07:56:14 PM
I wouldn't. But I don't think it necessarily prohibits lots of gun control laws, so I don't think you'd need to.

Having said that I always avoid the US gun control threads because it's something where I think there's a cultural gap as much as anything. I'll never understand the US perspective on guns and chances are vice-versa, so it's just not terribly productive.

You are a good lad.

Since you're English, would you take Piers Morgan back?  :P

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 07:49:13 PM
(snip)
And I'm going out on a limb now, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Constitution fairly explicit in all other cases where the right it is guaranteeing confer upon states and not individuals?

The Constitution confer on the states only powers, not rights.  Or, more correctly, it enumerates and thus limits the powers of the federal government and leaves other powers to the states.

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 26, 2012, 08:00:38 PM
Since you're English, would you take Piers Morgan back?  :P

Christ, no :P

Well done though, having Piers Morgan on national TV's like a 21st century Marshall Plan.

It seems to me that the whole debate on the Second Amendment, and the source of the failure of the USSC to understand it, lies in the supposed ambiguity of the phrases "well-regulated militia" (for whose maintenance the Second Amendment is explicitly enacted) and "the people" (whose "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). 

The Federalist 29 supplies the only contemporaneous explanation I am aware of the "the well-regulated militia."  It states that a well-regulated militia (as opposed to the common militia, which is every able-bodied male) must "be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia."  Further, it "not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Now, as to the matter of "the people" whose rights are being protected, I need only point out that "the people" are the ones who "establish and ordain this Constitution for the United States of America."  If "the people" means every individual, then we are stuck with the dilemma of dealing with those individuals who do not ordain and establish the Constitution - the Freemen argument.  If the Constitution applies to only those individuals who ordain and establish it, then it cannot empower the taxation of those who don't.  If "the people" is a collective term and not an individual one, then the second amendment has no individual mandate.

It is clear to me that the various state national guards make up the "well-regulated militia" that is referred to in the Second Amendment, and that the Second Amendment has no individual mandate.  Thus, its retention or abolition has little or no bearing on the issue of gun control.

Now, individual citizens may well have a right to self-defense, even though that isn't an explicitly-defined right under the Constitution.  If the USSC ruled that this was true, and that guns are a necessary part of that right, i wouldn't have a problem with such an interpretation. 

The irony of the situation is that the very justices who would argue for such a non-enumerated right are the very ones that oppose the concept of the non-enumerated right of privacy espoused in Roe v Wade, so they cannot enjoy the courage of their convictions.  :lmfao:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 07:51:29 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 07:40:01 PM
You're not big on leg work are you, please don't tell me you've an MBA ?  :P

Seriously mongers, I was trying to be polite, but what fucking business is it of yours?

Well if you bring a certain preparation or are prepare to do some research mid-thread, it keeps the flow of the discussion going, without being sidetracked.   ;)

Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 09:03:22 PM
Well if you bring a certain preparation or are prepare to do some research mid-thread, it keeps the flow of the discussion going, without being sidetracked.   ;)

Christ.  Man up and face the fact you're a nag mongers.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2012, 07:58:10 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 07:49:13 PM
And I'm going out on a limb now, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Constitution fairly explicit in all other cases where the right it is guaranteeing confer upon states and not individuals?

I think any constitution that's 4000 or so words long is hardly likely to be terribly explicit about anything. That's probably why it's so durable.

Do you feel that the reason that the EU failed was that it was overly precise and legalistic?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 07:49:13 PM
And I'm going out on a limb now, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Constitution fairly explicit in all other cases where the right it is guaranteeing confer upon states and not individuals?

The Constitution doesn't confer rights on states. I'm not suggesting the 2nd amendment does that.  I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment is not an unbounded individual right with respect to the sale and carriage of firearms; it has to be understood in context and limited to that context.

To put the shoe on the other foot, although the Heller position (and more extreme versions) are supposedly based on originalist understandings of the intent and meaning of the drafters, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as being an individual right to purchase and possess firearms for personal use could not possibly be what was intended in 1789.  In fact, that meaning would and could only make sense in a 20th century context.  Prior to the 1930s, it would have been inconceivable that the federal government could restrict the sale or possession of firearms, because such activity was not understood to be within the definition of interstate commerce, and no other enumerated power could conceivably give the federal government power to enact such legislation.  (the first federal gun law was passed in 1934)

The only way the 18th/19th century federal government could pass a law regulating firearms usage would be to enact regulations relating to such employment by the state militias.  And that is why the 2nd amendment is drafted the way it is.

Quote from: grumbler on December 26, 2012, 08:38:13 PM

The Federalist 29 supplies the only contemporaneous explanation I am aware of the "the well-regulated militia."  It states that a well-regulated militia (as opposed to the common militia, which is every able-bodied male) must "be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia."  Further, it "not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

The common militia is called the "unorganized militia" in the US Code. And yes, I think grumbles' paragraph here hits the point. I think the thinking surrounding having the unorganized militia keep arms at home was so that they would be skilled enough using them that they could become well-regulated in a relatively short amount of time and be able to compete against standing armies. Along with the fact that many of them used their own weapons in their military service.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 30, 2012, 01:54:43 PM
The common militia is called the "unorganized militia" in the US Code. And yes, I think grumbles' paragraph here hits the point. I think the thinking surrounding having the unorganized militia keep arms at home was so that they would be skilled enough using them that they could become well-regulated in a relatively short amount of time and be able to compete against standing armies. Along with the fact that many of them used their own weapons in their military service.

The thinking was that the organized state militia (now known as the National Guard) was the "well-regulated militia" that the Second Amendment was protecting.  The common militia was not useful (if you believe Hamilton knew what he was talking about) for the purposes which the Second Amendment was protecting - security against a Federal standing army.

I don't really care what America does regarding gun control.

If the term "the people" (as used in the Bill of Rights) does not confer individual rights, does mean that there are also no individual rights to peaceably assemble, petition for a redress of grievances, and to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects? :hmm:

The Constitution does not confer rights.  Rights existed before the Constitution.  Individual rights that existed before the Constitution continued to exist after it.

Quote from: Neil on December 26, 2012, 09:34:31 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2012, 07:58:10 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 07:49:13 PM
And I'm going out on a limb now, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Constitution fairly explicit in all other cases where the right it is guaranteeing confer upon states and not individuals?

I think any constitution that's 4000 or so words long is hardly likely to be terribly explicit about anything. That's probably why it's so durable.

Do you feel that the reason that the EU failed was that it was overly precise and legalistic?

The EU constitution failed because there was a fundamental scepticism and distrust towards the EU. This is IMHO because the EU has been getting the blame for all the medicine european politicians have forced upon their own people arguing that the evil EU is forcing us to do this rather than arguing that it may hurt a bit but it is good for us all.

It didn't help that it was incomprehensible to the people and full of crap that should be done in laws, regulations or administration.

Quote from: The Brain on December 31, 2012, 03:12:29 AM
I don't really care what America does regarding gun control.

:hug: