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

[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.

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

Truer words were never spoken. And imo that is why a NATIONAL "assault weapon ban" should be unconstitutional.

 

[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...

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...

I hold out hope that we do have 'urban patriots' that uphold the tenets of the Constitution, in it's original intent...

 

[westwall]

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...?

Nope. Based on the attempted coup of trump it is quite obvious that the 2nd Amendment is still relevant.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The days of 'the people' using rifles to fight their own army ended over a hundred years ago. In the age of the musket the people could own, generally, equal arms to what any government could own except maybe warships. That relative equity between forces of the people and the government ended around the time the Gatling Gun came into existence. The advent of modern artillery and then aircraft in the early 20th century forever ended any parity that may have been attainable by 'the people'.

If the American people have to fight their own army it would last a week and we'd lose on all counts. Even millions of kitted and fully auto AK47's or AR15's are going to be nothing more than a nuisance for our modern army. And since the whole argument for the 2nd amendment is so 'the people' can keep themselves free by arms is more than a century obsolete it now is nothing more than the Queen of England. No real power and it is more just a quaint old tradition that people feel all fuzzy about.

And don't get me wrong, I don't like that we can no longer defend ourselves from tyranny here. But reality is what it is. And all you nibs who think you're going to be a 'hero' and 'save the nation' go back to bed. The myth you live and breath is meaningless in physical reality. When a company of M1 Abrams supported by attack helicopters and jets come rolling down the road to your town and you have a line of 100,000 guys with full auto machine guns guess who loses. So don't post any stupid 'well these people did this 50 years ago'. We aren't talking about some other bullshit, we're talking about American people fighting their own army, marines, navy, and air force.

Should people still have rifles for hunting and pistols for self protection, yes. But this nonsense about 'pertectin freedom' is mental archeology. That myth ended a hundred years ago.

 

[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

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...

Actually I have not forgotten, my two favorite cartridges are .308 Winchester and 7mm-08
Both great for anything in North America. But like you said, I like the 6.5 spc more every time I shoot it. It’s great for mule deer down...

 

[Rustic]

The days of 'the people' using rifles to fight their own army ended over a hundred years ago. In the age of the musket the people could own, generally, equal arms to what any government could own except maybe warships. That relative equity between forces of the people and the government ended around the time the Gatling Gun came into existence. The advent of modern artillery and then aircraft in the early 20th century forever ended any parity that may have been attainable by 'the people'.

If the American people have to fight their own army it would last a week and we'd lose on all counts. Even millions of kitted and fully auto AK47's or AR15's are going to be nothing more than a nuisance for our modern army. And since the whole argument for the 2nd amendment is so 'the people' can keep themselves free by arms is more than a century obsolete it now is nothing more than the Queen of England. No real power and it is more just a quaint old tradition that people feel all fuzzy about.

And don't get me wrong, I don't like that we can no longer defend ourselves from tyranny here. But reality is what it is. And all you nibs who think you're going to be a 'hero' and 'save the nation' go back to bed. The myth you live and breath is meaningless in physical reality. When a company of M1 Abrams supported by attack helicopters and jets come rolling down the road to your town and you have a line of 100,000 guys with full auto machine guns guess who loses. So don't post any stupid 'well these people did this 50 years ago'. We aren't talking about some other bullshit, we're talking about American people fighting their own army, marines, navy, and air force.

Should people still have rifles for hunting and pistols for self protection, yes. But this nonsense about 'pertectin freedom' is mental archeology. That myth ended a hundred years ago.

Lol
Dip shit
First of all, if the federal government were to forcibly confiscate Americas firearms they could not use the military, they would use the CIA and other federal government resources. Second of all, the military would never go for that they are overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
Third, urban and rural will NEVER think the same on much of anything. And they are not supposed to. You silly little fucker

 

[SavannahMann]

If the OP means "antiquated" in that the citizenry can no longer oppose successfully with weapons a totalitarian government, yes, that is so.

Um. No it isn’t. Bundy Ranch for proof.

 

[Markle]

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.

Obviously, you skipped all the classes on punctuation. It would be good for you to go back and take a remedial course in English and PUNCTUATION.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.”

A fair point against the OP's assertion that the 2nd was intended to thwart tyranny from our own government.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Obviously, you skipped all the classes on punctuation. It would be good for you to go back and take a remedial course in English and PUNCTUATION.

OMG a punctuation Nazi........

 

[regent]

If someday a hand-held A bomb was perfected, would the Second Amendment still apply to that simple hand held weapon?

 

[MrShangles]

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.

Exactly. When the Bible first came out, it was good to say in the Ten Commandments, "Do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor thy father and mother, etc." It was novel at the time. But stoning non-virgins or disobedient children, or owning slaves has become antiquated. That is what's wrong with these gun-loving nuts quoting the Second Amendment all the time!

How do you feel about the first amendment, looks like you use that one, so maybe us gun nuts use the second amendment, what gives you the right to say the amendment I enjoy should be changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KeiserC]

The days of 'the people' using rifles to fight their own army ended over a hundred years ago. In the age of the musket the people could own, generally, equal arms to what any government could own except maybe warships. That relative equity between forces of the people and the government ended around the time the Gatling Gun came into existence. The advent of modern artillery and then aircraft in the early 20th century forever ended any parity that may have been attainable by 'the people'.

If the American people have to fight their own army it would last a week and we'd lose on all counts. Even millions of kitted and fully auto AK47's or AR15's are going to be nothing more than a nuisance for our modern army. And since the whole argument for the 2nd amendment is so 'the people' can keep themselves free by arms is more than a century obsolete it now is nothing more than the Queen of England. No real power and it is more just a quaint old tradition that people feel all fuzzy about.

And don't get me wrong, I don't like that we can no longer defend ourselves from tyranny here. But reality is what it is. And all you nibs who think you're going to be a 'hero' and 'save the nation' go back to bed. The myth you live and breath is meaningless in physical reality. When a company of M1 Abrams supported by attack helicopters and jets come rolling down the road to your town and you have a line of 100,000 guys with full auto machine guns guess who loses. So don't post any stupid 'well these people did this 50 years ago'. We aren't talking about some other bullshit, we're talking about American people fighting their own army, marines, navy, and air force.

Should people still have rifles for hunting and pistols for self protection, yes. But this nonsense about 'pertectin freedom' is mental archeology. That myth ended a hundred years ago.

Alright Mr. historian... do you know (that) & (why) we place strict restrictions on what our police, (civilian authority) may have and utilize...? Find me a State or local police force that is allowed the use of even 'light' machine guns or grenades or claymores ...etc. There is a specific reason for this.... and guess what, it's based on the rudiments of 2nd. Amendment "commensurate arms" language ... Tangentially, (as it's Fed. & State gov.) do you know the implications and seriousness of imposing Marshal Law in the US?

 

[BluesLegend]

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

Fine then amend the Constitution, change the 2nd. Oh wait you can't muster the votes to do that well then I guess it sucks to be you.

 

[Markle]

The days of 'the people' using rifles to fight their own army ended over a hundred years ago. In the age of the musket the people could own, generally, equal arms to what any government could own except maybe warships. That relative equity between forces of the people and the government ended around the time the Gatling Gun came into existence. The advent of modern artille ry and then aircraft in the early 20th century forever ended any parity that may have been attainable by 'the people'.

If the American people have to fight their own army it would last a week and we'd lose on all counts. Even millions of kitted and fully auto AK47's or AR15's are going to be nothing more than a nuisance for our modern army. And since the whole argument for the 2nd amendment is so 'the people' can keep themselves free by arms is more than a century obsolete it now is nothing more than the Queen of England. No real power and it is more just a quaint old tradition that people feel all fuzzy about.

And don't get me wrong, I don't like that we can no longer defend ourselves from tyranny here. But reality is what it is. And all you nibs who think you're going to be a 'hero' and 'save the nation' go back to bed. The myth you live and breath is meaningless in physical reality. When a company of M1 Abrams supported by attack helicopters and jets come rolling down the road to your town and you have a line of 100,000 guys with full auto machine guns guess who loses. So don't post any stupid 'well these people did this 50 years ago'. We aren't talking about some other bullshit, we're talking about American people fighting their own army, marines, navy, and air force.

Should people still have rifles for hunting and pistols for self protection, yes. But this nonsense about 'pertectin freedom' is mental archeology. That myth ended a hundred years ago.

Conservatives must continue to be able to defend themselves not only from the government but from Democrats and Progressives.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no indication that 'original intent' was stagnant language and thought.

 

[Markle]

OMG a punctuation Nazi........

Yeah, funny how that works!

 

[Markle]

If someday a hand-held A bomb was perfected, would the Second Amendment still apply to that simple hand held weapon?

Is a hand grenade in compliance with the Second Amendment? How many do you own?

 

[BluesLegend]

There is no indication that 'original intent' was stagnant language and thought.

Our right to keep and bar arms is inalienable and self evident, its not granted by the 2nd. According to Jefferson and other prominent thinkers of his time, such statements as “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights’ are obviously true. Such statements do not require proof. The “truths” are held to be unquestionable and beyond debate, since their truth is said to be obvious.

 

[KeiserC]

There is no indication that 'original intent' was stagnant language and thought.

Our right to keep and bar arms is inalienable and self evident, its not granted by the 2nd. According to Jefferson and other prominent thinkers of his time, such statements as “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights’ are obviously true. Such statements do not require proof. The “truths” are held to be unquestionable and beyond debate, since their truth is said to be obvious.

I'm not going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole... though I agree in much of the sentiment. lol