Are we so Societally Evolved as to render the Constitiution (2nd Amend.) Antiquated...

[flacaltenn]

The 2nd Amendment was "antiquated" on the day it was written.

The Constitution, including Bill of Rights, is generally a masterpiece of forward-thinking that is still relevant today - but not the 2nd Amendment. The founders, mostly men of great vision, apparently couldn't see past the day they wrote it. It has become so obsolete that SCOTUS can interpret it any way it wishes - which it has and will continue to do so.

It's like an Etch A Sketch.

Yeah... That must be why the Fed govt was writing Letters of Marque and Reprisal so that CIVILIANS could take their 8 cannon battleships out to combat pirates for another 50 years...

 

[KeiserC]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's the fact that we have devolved socially into whining sniveling self centered narcissists that the second amendment is being questioned.

People don't lose rights because they are too responsible now do they?

Apparently they do...not a person who has an AR-15 right now has done a school shooting.

They are not considered responsible by the sniveling majority.

See we live in a world now where it is your fault if someone else commits a crime

No, we live in a world were we have a society that tries to protect itself by limiting certain freedoms which are harmful to society as a whole. You can't use a cellphone while driving, because society has found that doing so increases the risks of crashing. You can't buy cocaine legally because society has found the drug kills people. You can't go out and rape somebody because society has ruled that it's harmful and immoral. You can't buy a fully armed Abrams tank because having something like that in your possession is deemed dangerous. That is the price of living in a society ruled by laws. You have to be able to give up certain freedoms for the common good.

Sounds peachy.... Reminds me of a line by Beecher..
"Liberty is the soul's right to breathe and, when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girdled too tight."

 

[bendog]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

Imo you misconstrue the 2nd as a block to tyranny, and the detracts from your argument, which seems to me that capacity bans are an undue burden. I think Scalia did a fair (even handed but brief) review of the history. The Founders feared a national army that could be used to coerce states. States had their own militas, unlike today. State militas were self-armed, although govts sometimes mandated the specific arms. "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." Literally taken, that would have been quite true to the Founders.

But if that's all the 2nd is about, there's no individual right to guns. And clearly it is not all the 2nd is about. So, exit Tyranny ... unless you're some 21st century militia type fearing black helicopters, and even then, the Founders gave no protections to self-declared militas seeking to use self-help to abolish legally enacted laws.

But Scalia found the second clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms) had an independent meaning from the first clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Sta). That is individuals have a right to guns. And imo that would also be obvious to the Founders. The southern Founders feared slave uprisings. The frontier Founders feared Indians. The rural founders feared beasts of prey that ate their chickens. However, the urban Founders embraced restrictions on carrying and firing weapons inside cities.

I don't think there's any argument that a capacity ban could be legal IF there was a way to show it actually would decrease crime. I'm not assuming that it can be shown, though. Imo making background checks more thorough would have a better effect. Spending money to make schools more secure would as well. And a school in bumfkc Kan where everyone knows everyone, including the Sheriff and teachers, is a lot different from a school with a thousand kids and nobody knowing much of anybody.

 

[whitehall]

The left seems to have trouble with both freedom of speech and freedom of religion so maybe we are societally evolved enough to render the 1st Amendment antiquated.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Societally evolved! We are a fractured people with each tribe sincerely desiring the complete demise of the other. For now there is the thin line of various laws preventing total war of factions. That line is getting thinner every day.

 

[TNHarley]

`
As far as constitutional interpretations, I favor the "living" as opposed to the "original intent" method. The former is fluid and dynamic while the latter is stagnant and ridged.
`

Its called making an amendment. Which is in the "original intent"
You dont just ignore it..
That would great examples to set for our future school shooters

 

[Soupnazi630]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

Ask the brits.

They gave up their rights to own guns and be armed. It was done incrementally first with a ban on " assault rifles " and then handguns and finally any and all guns.

Now the UK has become a draconian tyrannical state where people are being imprisoned for face book posts and thought crime.



Despotism always follows disarmament and tyrannical control over people is always the only end of gun control.

The second is no more antiquated than the other amendments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are no gun control measures of any consquence being proposed that haven't already passed constitutional muster.

 

[Soupnazi630]

A "societally evolved" nation wouldn't have school shootings.

Or a queen.

Or speech codes for transgender pronouns.

Or socialism

 

[Rustic]

The 2nd Amendment was "antiquated" on the day it was written.

The Constitution, including Bill of Rights, is generally a masterpiece of forward-thinking that is still relevant today - but not the 2nd Amendment. The founders, mostly men of great vision, apparently couldn't see past the day they wrote it. It has become so obsolete that SCOTUS can interpret it any way it wishes - which it has and will continue to do so.

It's like an Etch A Sketch.

 

[KeiserC]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

Imo you misconstrue the 2nd as a block to tyranny, and the detracts from your argument, which seems to me that capacity bans are an undue burden. I think Scalia did a fair (even handed but brief) review of the history. The Founders feared a national army that could be used to coerce states. States had their own militas, unlike today. State militas were self-armed, although govts sometimes mandated the specific arms. "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." Literally taken, that would have been quite true to the Founders.

But if that's all the 2nd is about, there's no individual right to guns. And clearly it is not all the 2nd is about. So, exit Tyranny ... unless you're some 21st century militia type fearing black helicopters, and even then, the Founders gave no protections to self-declared militas seeking to use self-help to abolish legally enacted laws.

But Scalia found the second clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms) had an independent meaning from the first clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Sta). That is individuals have a right to guns. And imo that would also be obvious to the Founders. The southern Founders feared slave uprisings. The frontier Founders feared Indians. The rural founders feared beasts of prey that ate their chickens. However, the urban Founders embraced restrictions on carrying and firing weapons inside cities.

I don't think there's any argument that a capacity ban could be legal IF there was a way to show it actually would decrease crime. I'm not assuming that it can be shown, though. Imo making background checks more thorough would have a better effect. Spending money to make schools more secure would as well. And a school in bumfkc Kan where everyone knows everyone, including the Sheriff and teachers, is a lot different from a school with a thousand kids and nobody knowing much of anybody.

Good post... I'm well aware of that Scalia interview. I'm also aware than no individual is the final arbiter or authority (on an issue) , so cherry picking "authorities" to suit one's narrative... only holds a limited amt. of water...

 

[KeiserC]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

Imo you misconstrue the 2nd as a block to tyranny, and the detracts from your argument, which seems to me that capacity bans are an undue burden. I think Scalia did a fair (even handed but brief) review of the history. The Founders feared a national army that could be used to coerce states. States had their own militas, unlike today. State militas were self-armed, although govts sometimes mandated the specific arms. "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." Literally taken, that would have been quite true to the Founders.

But if that's all the 2nd is about, there's no individual right to guns. And clearly it is not all the 2nd is about. So, exit Tyranny ... unless you're some 21st century militia type fearing black helicopters, and even then, the Founders gave no protections to self-declared militas seeking to use self-help to abolish legally enacted laws.

But Scalia found the second clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms) had an independent meaning from the first clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Sta). That is individuals have a right to guns. And imo that would also be obvious to the Founders. The southern Founders feared slave uprisings. The frontier Founders feared Indians. The rural founders feared beasts of prey that ate their chickens. However, the urban Founders embraced restrictions on carrying and firing weapons inside cities.

I don't think there's any argument that a capacity ban could be legal IF there was a way to show it actually would decrease crime. I'm not assuming that it can be shown, though. Imo making background checks more thorough would have a better effect. Spending money to make schools more secure would as well. And a school in bumfkc Kan where everyone knows everyone, including the Sheriff and teachers, is a lot different from a school with a thousand kids and nobody knowing much of anybody.

Good post... I'm well aware of that Scalia interview. I'm also aware than no individual is the final arbiter or authority (on an issue), so cherry picking "authorities" to suit one's narrative... only holds a limited amt. of water...

 

[forkup]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's, notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

It's the fact that we have devolved socially into whining sniveling self centered narcissists that the second amendment is being questioned.

People don't lose rights because they are too responsible now do they?

Apparently they do...not a person who has an AR-15 right now has done a school shooting.

They are not considered responsible by the sniveling majority.

See we live in a world now where it is your fault if someone else commits a crime

No, we live in a world were we have a society that tries to protect itself by limiting certain freedoms which are harmful to society as a whole. You can't use a cellphone while driving, because society has found that doing so increases the risks of crashing. You can't buy cocaine legally because society has found the drug kills people. You can't go out and rape somebody because society has ruled that it's harmful and immoral. You can't buy a fully armed Abrams tank because having something like that in your possession is deemed dangerous. That is the price of living in a society ruled by laws. You have to be able to give up certain freedoms for the common good.

Sounds peachy.... Reminds me of a line by Beecher..
"Liberty is the soul's right to breathe and, when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girdled too tight."

That's the difficulty of the whole thing. It's sometimes hard to judge when laws are girdled to tight, because it's subjective. I don't feel myself unduly restricted if I wouldn't be able to buy an AR15 (or any weapon for that matter), I suspect you do. I try to approach laws from the standpoint of net gain. How many people are hurt by the law compared to the amount of people that are helped. I admit even that can be subjective but it seems like a rational starting point.

 

[bendog]

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny

The 2nd Amendment was not a check against Tyranny of the Government of the People. It was for the Militia's to always have their weapons with them and to be well trained in the art of military maneuvers and drills. Each State had one. They were ultimately under control of the CiC. Technological advances have rendered the Citizen Militia's obsolete and replaced them with the National Guard. So in a way yes things have evolved. Of course the Supreme Court has decided to re-write the Amendment and ignore bit about the Militia and it's value in a free state and granted the people a limited right to certain weapons.

Clearly impossible to do in this climate but I think it needs to be re-written to clearly define the peoples rights.

State militas were ultimately under the control of the feds, but the States appointed the officers. Which I think in theory would prevent the congress calling out ten militas to impose tyranny on three states.

Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) states:

“Congress shall have the power to: 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.”

 

[Rustic]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

This is antiquated... lol

This Weatherby is an antiquated piece of shit... lol

 

[bendog]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

Imo you misconstrue the 2nd as a block to tyranny, and the detracts from your argument, which seems to me that capacity bans are an undue burden. I think Scalia did a fair (even handed but brief) review of the history. The Founders feared a national army that could be used to coerce states. States had their own militas, unlike today. State militas were self-armed, although govts sometimes mandated the specific arms. "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." Literally taken, that would have been quite true to the Founders.

But if that's all the 2nd is about, there's no individual right to guns. And clearly it is not all the 2nd is about. So, exit Tyranny ... unless you're some 21st century militia type fearing black helicopters, and even then, the Founders gave no protections to self-declared militas seeking to use self-help to abolish legally enacted laws.

But Scalia found the second clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms) had an independent meaning from the first clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Sta). That is individuals have a right to guns. And imo that would also be obvious to the Founders. The southern Founders feared slave uprisings. The frontier Founders feared Indians. The rural founders feared beasts of prey that ate their chickens. However, the urban Founders embraced restrictions on carrying and firing weapons inside cities.

I don't think there's any argument that a capacity ban could be legal IF there was a way to show it actually would decrease crime. I'm not assuming that it can be shown, though. Imo making background checks more thorough would have a better effect. Spending money to make schools more secure would as well. And a school in bumfkc Kan where everyone knows everyone, including the Sheriff and teachers, is a lot different from a school with a thousand kids and nobody knowing much of anybody.

Good post... I'm well aware of that Scalia interview. I'm also aware than no individual is the final arbiter or authority (on an issue), so cherry picking "authorities" to suit one's narrative... only holds a limited amt. of water...

Orin Hatch wrote a good article, but I haven't seen it in years. I referenced Scalia's opinion in Heller, because it's concise. There are lots of scholarly articles.

Again, I apologize for yesterday.

 

[KeiserC]

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny

The 2nd Amendment was not a check against Tyranny of the Government of the People. It was for the Militia's to always have their weapons with them and to be well trained in the art of military maneuvers and drills. Each State had one. They were ultimately under control of the CiC. Technological advances have rendered the Citizen Militia's obsolete and replaced them with the National Guard. So in a way yes things have evolved. Of course the Supreme Court has decided to re-write the Amendment and ignore bit about the Militia and it's value in a free state and granted the people a limited right to certain weapons.

Clearly impossible to do in this climate but I think it needs to be re-written to clearly define the peoples rights.

State militas were ultimately under the control of the feds, but the States appointed the officers. Which I think in theory would prevent the congress calling out ten militas to impose tyranny on three states.

Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) states:

“Congress shall have the power to: 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.”

Not germane to the issue... go back further to original intent in framing...

 

[bendog]

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny

The 2nd Amendment was not a check against Tyranny of the Government of the People. It was for the Militia's to always have their weapons with them and to be well trained in the art of military maneuvers and drills. Each State had one. They were ultimately under control of the CiC. Technological advances have rendered the Citizen Militia's obsolete and replaced them with the National Guard. So in a way yes things have evolved. Of course the Supreme Court has decided to re-write the Amendment and ignore bit about the Militia and it's value in a free state and granted the people a limited right to certain weapons.

Clearly impossible to do in this climate but I think it needs to be re-written to clearly define the peoples rights.

State militas were ultimately under the control of the feds, but the States appointed the officers. Which I think in theory would prevent the congress calling out ten militas to impose tyranny on three states.

Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) states:

“Congress shall have the power to: 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.”

Not germane to the issue... go back further to original intent in framing...

The original intent was to find a middle ground between the state militias being called out to oppose a foreign invasion or an internal insurrection AND the federal govt using a portion of the States militias to impose tyranny on a minority of states. But my post was just to Boo, and not a comment on your thread.

Again, I think any discussion of "militias" is inapplicable to the thread as it applies to restrictions on the individual right of ownership. And it's just a distraction. Though maybe interesting.

 

[Rustic]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

Imo you misconstrue the 2nd as a block to tyranny, and the detracts from your argument, which seems to me that capacity bans are an undue burden. I think Scalia did a fair (even handed but brief) review of the history. The Founders feared a national army that could be used to coerce states. States had their own militas, unlike today. State militas were self-armed, although govts sometimes mandated the specific arms. "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." Literally taken, that would have been quite true to the Founders.

But if that's all the 2nd is about, there's no individual right to guns. And clearly it is not all the 2nd is about. So, exit Tyranny ... unless you're some 21st century militia type fearing black helicopters, and even then, the Founders gave no protections to self-declared militas seeking to use self-help to abolish legally enacted laws.

But Scalia found the second clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms) had an independent meaning from the first clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Sta). That is individuals have a right to guns. And imo that would also be obvious to the Founders. The southern Founders feared slave uprisings. The frontier Founders feared Indians. The rural founders feared beasts of prey that ate their chickens. However, the urban Founders embraced restrictions on carrying and firing weapons inside cities.

I don't think there's any argument that a capacity ban could be legal IF there was a way to show it actually would decrease crime. I'm not assuming that it can be shown, though. Imo making background checks more thorough would have a better effect. Spending money to make schools more secure would as well. And a school in bumfkc Kan where everyone knows everyone, including the Sheriff and teachers, is a lot different from a school with a thousand kids and nobody knowing much of anybody.

Good post... I'm well aware of that Scalia interview. I'm also aware than no individual is the final arbiter or authority (on an issue), so cherry picking "authorities" to suit one's narrative... only holds a limited amt. of water...

Orin Hatch wrote a good article, but I haven't seen it in years. I referenced Scalia's opinion in Heller, because it's concise. There are lots of scholarly articles.

Again, I apologize for yesterday.

Rural and urban America will never agree on much of anything let alone the second amendment...

 

[KeiserC]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

This is antiquated... lol

This Weatherby is an antiquated piece of shit... lol

Rustic, you've gone on in such length espousing the virtues of the AR-15 for hunting, that I feared U forgot the virtues of classic hunting rifles (cal.'s) actually designed for lethality in deer size game.... lol (yes one can do worse than a 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC) whatever floats you boat...