What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[FA_Q2]

Is there a point to that? It changes nothing. And the writing of all the amendments have inconsistencies in style and substance. Some mix concepts, some have one simple concept, some have a ordered list of concepts. Your elephant is just a dead elephant, nothing more

Of course there's a point, that being that it renders your whole explanation of what the clause is for a dubious theory.

Answer the question it brings up -- why would a Constitutional Amendment, alone among all other Amendments, singularly need to explain itself? WHO exactly is it talking to? Why does no other Amendment take the time to justify its existence ---- yet this one does?

These queries of course all assume your theory of the clause as self-justification.... and not a clumsily worded clause of limitation, which is the other glaring possibility.

That's very much a live elephant. And they live a long time.

No, it is not. You are trying to read the second in a manner that agrees with what you want it to mean rather than what it does.

No matter how you slice the first clause it does not negate the rest of the amendment or the fact that it directly protects the right of the people. That is exactly what you are trying to do by connecting the right with the militia - something that the language of the second completely and utterly avoids doing. It is very clear.

Further, when you look into what the founders considered the 'militia' then the argument that the right is not a personal right to bear arms is even more nonsensical. The SCOTUS has said as much as well.

You may believe that the right is outdated. You may believe that it cannot be applied to today's realities as the use and function of firearms has changed so much. Those are valid points. They are not, however, points that allow one to violate the amendment. There is a clear method to changing outdated or incorrect portions of the constitution. Should anyone believe that the second should not confer a personal right they should not be trying to argue that the meaning is something it is not - they should simply be changing it.

Ummm..... I don't have a "way I want it to mean", and I stated that from the outset. This point is about how English works. The fact remains, there is no known reason a Constitutional Amendment needs to explain itself. Prove me wrong. That makes the theory of its purpose as proposed still viable but unlikely, which leads us to consider other possibilities.

And as I also made clear, none of those possibilities can be proven since the Amendment does not spell out what it meant.

So I'm not the one dismissing viable possibilities here. Nor am I the one presuming what my intentions are. That's a hint.

You seem to be rejecting the fact that the second protects a personal right to bear arms unconnected with the militia. Am I incorrect about that?

I'm simply saying that that distinction is not clear, due to the impossibly vague construction of the language. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. There's no way to tell from the language itself. One can read it either way, but what one cannot do is declare an absolute that it means one and not the other.

I do disagree with absolutes in general but I think interpreting it in any other fashion is a real stretch of the imagination and the language is pretty clear.

Essentially, the contention that you brought up is the fact that there is a clause in the beginning essentially setting up the reasoning for the rest of the amendment. Is this strange? In the context of the other 9 amendments, yes it is. However, to use that part of the sentence to adjust the meaning of the plain English in the rest of the sentence requires one to make assumptions whereas taking the words at their actual meaning does not. Just because the reasoning of the fist part of the amendment looks unnecessary or strange does not mean that it is proper to assume that you (and this is not you specifically) understand why it was put there to the point that the meaning of the rest can be, essentially, ignored. That is exactly what those that try and create a collective right sans an individual one or try and connect the right with militia service does.

I also have to go back to what the militia meant to the founders.

 

[Pogo]

I do disagree with absolutes in general but I think interpreting it in any other fashion is a real stretch of the imagination and the language is pretty clear.

Essentially, the contention that you brought up is the fact that there is a clause in the beginning essentially setting up the reasoning for the rest of the amendment. Is this strange? In the context of the other 9 amendments, yes it is.

Actually that's Kaz' theory, that the clause is there as a basis of reasoning, not mine. I'm pointing out why that basis is unlikely. Yes it is different, if taken as such, and would in that role perform a service that is in no way needed, which is why it's unlikely. No other Amendment stops to deliver a sermon on why speech should be unfettered, or why search and seizure must be reasonable, etc, even though many of these were borderline revolutionary concepts. That leaves the other possibility (unless there is a third we're not seeing) that it's meant to specify the parameters for what follows ---- although again, the language doesn't specifically do that either. It's really worded as if part of the debate that preceded it somehow ended up in the final document and nobody caught it to clarify what its intent is.

However, to use that part of the sentence to adjust the meaning of the plain English in the rest of the sentence requires one to make assumptions whereas taking the words at their actual meaning does not. Just because the reasoning of the fist part of the amendment looks unnecessary or strange does not mean that it is proper to assume that you (and this is not you specifically) understand why it was put there to the point that the meaning of the rest can be, essentially, ignored. That is exactly what those that try and create a collective right sans an individual one or try and connect the right with militia service does.

Inasmuch as the words' actual meaning doesn't explain itself, sure it requires an assumption. Either way. That's what is vague about it. "A well regulated Militia being necessary" stops short of saying, "therefore the right to bear Arms shall not be infringed so long as it's within the context of a Militia" ---- nor does it say what the status of the right is in the absence of a Militia. The intent could have been either, yet neither is unequivocally articulated.

 

[Contumacious]

[
No weird twists, just common sense, if you say "we won't allow X to exercise certain rights" then obviously you either have some test for X, or else why bother?

You do not understand the issue.
It is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns.
1: The fact that it is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns in no way necessitates that we must prevent felons from doing so
2: Having to prove that you are not breaking the law when trying to exercise your rights is prior restraint and violates the constitution.

No shit moron it's illegal for felons to own firearms so how the fuck do you make sure they aren't , unless you check people's ID? Duh

Excuse me dingle berry.

But the police state has criminalized numerous acts in which there are no victims.

WHY should someone convicted of a smoking a joint or similar victimless crime be deprived of owning a firearm?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Not sure why the name calling, but this thread isn't about crimes that you think aren't crimes, I think all adults realize that when any of say criminals shouldn't have guns, we're talking about felons.

Excuse me dingle berry.

But the police state has criminalized numerous acts in which there are no victims.

WHY should someone convicted of a smoking a joint or similar victimless crime be deprived of owning a firearm?!?!?!?!?!?!?


High Court Rejects Appeal Over Stiff Marijuana Sentence

• By SAM HANANEL, ASSOCIATED PRESS
• 
  
• The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal from a 76-year-old Alabama man who was sentenced to life in prison without parole for possessing less than three pounds of marijuana that he said he grew for personal use.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The end game is common sense gun regulations...

"Common sense" dictates that the regulations have efficacy and do not violate the constitution.
Thus, nothing you want qualifies as 'common sense'

'common sense" in the 21st Century is different today than it was in the 18th Century. Keep in mind, bloodletting was a common practice then. What you suggest is that common sense in the 18th century meant that women were too stupid to vote, Africans kidnapped and sold in the Americas were property and 3/5th's of a human being for tax purposes.

 

[Avatar4321]

Empowering individuals to defend their life, liberty, and property

 

[Muhammed]

For those who don't find an exact match, just pick the closest one. It's impossible to cover every possible choice in a poll like this.

Note this is a goal question, not a question what the policies are to get there.

Unlimited.

The Right of the People To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The end game is common sense gun regulations...

"Common sense" dictates that the regulations have efficacy and do not violate the constitution.
Thus, nothing you want qualifies as 'common sense'

'common sense" in the 21st Century is different today than it was in the 18th Century.

"Common sense" dictates that the regulations have efficacy and do not violate the constitution.
That has not, and will never change.
Nothing you want qualifies as 'common sense'[

 

[M14 Shooter]

For those who don't find an exact match, just pick the closest one. It's impossible to cover every possible choice in a poll like this.

Note this is a goal question, not a question what the policies are to get there.

Unlimited.
The Right of the People To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.

And...
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[Little-Acorn]

'common sense" in the 21st Century is different today than it was in the 18th Century.

The usual nonsensical tripe.

"Common sense" in the 18th century dictated that the government should have no say in who could own and carry a gun and who couldn't.

And "common sense" in the 21st century dictates the same thing. If anything, even more strongly, given the horrendous massacres perpetrated by government who disarmed their citizens after the time of George Washington.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

....or any other purpose the individual sees necessary. Governed only by the laws against murder, unwarranted assault, threatening, etc.

There are (and must be) laws against certain usages of guns and other weapons, with penalties as severe as warranted (including the death penalty). But there can never be a law against ANY individual owning or carrying a gun.

 

[Little-Acorn]

'common sense" in the 21st Century is different today than it was in the 18th Century.

The usual nonsensical tripe.

"Common sense" in the 18th century dictated that the government should have no say in who could own and carry a gun and who couldn't. The Framers knew it, and wrote a Constitution embodying that principle.

And "common sense" in the 21st century dictates the same thing. If anything, even more strongly, given the horrendous massacres perpetrated by government who disarmed their citizens after the time of George Washington.

In many cases, government disarmament started with "just a few obvious requirements", which were not resisted by their people. Then a few more - after all who could object to just a slight advance over what we have today? And then, as people started resisting this trend, well, we can't have this disorder, can we?

Recognize the pattern? You should. It's happening today, right here. Again.

The Framers knew it would happen - it had already happened more than once, even before their time. Which they knew, being careful scholars of past governments.

And so they put provisions in the Constitution saying that NO government could infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And today's wannabee dictators have been chipping and grinding away at it ever since, pretending the flat ban doesn't mean what it says, or that things are different in the 21st century from what they were in the 18th, and other miserable excuses, lies, and diversions that would have made the Framers laugh.

The Framers called our modern gun-rights-haters correctly. They always start with "just a few common sense regulations". But once they get that, they never stop. And the next Holocaust or Holodomor or Killing Fields are never too far distant... as they never have been, throughout history.

 

[Wry Catcher]

'common sense" in the 21st Century is different today than it was in the 18th Century.

The usual nonsensical tripe.

"Common sense" in the 18th century dictated that the government should have no say in who could own and carry a gun and who couldn't. The Framers knew it, and wrote a Constitution embodying that principle.

And "common sense" in the 21st century dictates the same thing. If anything, even more strongly, given the horrendous massacres perpetrated by government who disarmed their citizens after the time of George Washington.

In many cases, government disarmament started with "just a few obvious requirements", which were not resisted by their people. Then a few more - after all who could object to just a slight advance over what we have today? And then, as people started resisting this trend, well, we can't have this disorder, can we?

Recognize the pattern? You should. It's happening today, right here. Again.

The Framers knew it would happen - it had already happened more than once, even before their time. Which they knew, being careful scholars of past governments.

And so they put provisions in the Constitution saying that NO government could infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And today's wannabee dictators have been chipping and grinding away at it ever since, pretending the flat ban doesn't mean what it says, or that things are different in the 21st century from what they were in the 18th, and other miserable excuses, lies, and diversions that would have made the Framers laugh.

The Framers called our modern gun-rights-haters correctly. They always start with "just a few common sense regulations". But once they get that, they never stop. And the next Holocaust or Holodomor or Killing Fields are never too far distant... as they never have been, throughout history.

Logical Fallacy: The Slippery slope argument is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.

 

[Wry Catcher]

'common sense" in the 21st Century is different today than it was in the 18th Century.

The usual nonsensical tripe.

"Common sense" in the 18th century dictated that the government should have no say in who could own and carry a gun and who couldn't. The Framers knew it, and wrote a Constitution embodying that principle.

And "common sense" in the 21st century dictates the same thing. If anything, even more strongly, given the horrendous massacres perpetrated by government who disarmed their citizens after the time of George Washington.

In many cases, government disarmament started with "just a few obvious requirements", which were not resisted by their people. Then a few more - after all who could object to just a slight advance over what we have today? And then, as people started resisting this trend, well, we can't have this disorder, can we?

Recognize the pattern? You should. It's happening today, right here. Again.

The Framers knew it would happen - it had already happened more than once, even before their time. Which they knew, being careful scholars of past governments.

And so they put provisions in the Constitution saying that NO government could infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And today's wannabee dictators have been chipping and grinding away at it ever since, pretending the flat ban doesn't mean what it says, or that things are different in the 21st century from what they were in the 18th, and other miserable excuses, lies, and diversions that would have made the Framers laugh.

The Framers called our modern gun-rights-haters correctly. They always start with "just a few common sense regulations". But once they get that, they never stop. And the next Holocaust or Holodomor or Killing Fields are never too far distant... as they never have been, throughout history.

Common sense is not common in those with a gun fetish: Sexual arousal with an inanimate object (such as a gun) is a mental illness. Considering the excessive emotion by those who are (violently?) opposed to gun control in any form, it seems most likely to have atypical sexual desires associated with a gun. See:

Fetishistic Disorder Symptoms

Considering the set of those who defend the Second A. with vigor, who also are homophobic, one must rule out such a diagnosis.

 

[Contumacious]

[
No weird twists, just common sense, if you say "we won't allow X to exercise certain rights" then obviously you either have some test for X, or else why bother?

You do not understand the issue.
It is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns.
1: The fact that it is illegal for felons to buy/own/possess guns in no way necessitates that we must prevent felons from doing so
2: Having to prove that you are not breaking the law when trying to exercise your rights is prior restraint and violates the constitution.

No shit moron it's illegal for felons to own firearms so how the fuck do you make sure they aren't , unless you check people's ID? Duh

Excuse me dingle berry.

But the police state has criminalized numerous acts in which there are no victims.

WHY should someone convicted of a smoking a joint or similar victimless crime be deprived of owning a firearm?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

Not sure why the name calling, but this thread isn't about crimes that you think aren't crimes, I think all adults realize that when any of say criminals shouldn't have guns, we're talking about felons.

Excuse me dingle berry.

But the police state has criminalized numerous acts in which there are no victims.

WHY should someone convicted of a smoking a joint or similar victimless crime be deprived of owning a firearm?!?!?!?!?!?!?


High Court Rejects Appeal Over Stiff Marijuana Sentence

• By SAM HANANEL, ASSOCIATED PRESS
• 
  
• The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal from a 76-year-old Alabama man who was sentenced to life in prison without parole for possessing less than three pounds of marijuana that he said he grew for personal use.

Excuse me dingle berry.

But the police state has criminalized numerous acts in which there are no victims.

WHY should someone convicted of a smoking a joint or similar victimless crime be deprived of owning a firearm?!?!?!?!?!?!?


High Court Rejects Appeal Over Stiff Marijuana Sentence

• By SAM HANANEL, ASSOCIATED PRESS
• The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal from a 76-year-old Alabama veteran who was sentenced to life in prison without parole for possessing less than three pounds of marijuana that he said he grew for personal use.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes it is, but it is time for 2nd Amendment proponents to recognize a reality here. Something has to give.

Since 1993, violent crime, gun related violent crime, murder and gun-related murder has dropped %55.
Over that time, the number of guns has gone up by scores of millions.
Given that, what needs to "give" and why?

We can't just have a strict reading of the 2nd and that's it.

The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st.

Really, if by this statement ("The 2nd should be read with the exact same parameters as the 1st") you believe no law which limits speech or the exercise of religion shall not be infringed?

Thus it is fine to yell fire in a crowded theater, use calumny to discredit and or harm others, allow religious orders to practice animal and human sacrifices or to require the people to apply for a permit to assemble?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Looks reasonable.

 

[g5000]

I don't like the government knowing what guns I own. I can buy any number of consumer products without having to inform the government of my purchases.

That's why I prefer people be registered as an eligible gun buyer the exact same way we register as an eligible voter.

I prove I am eligible to vote, and the government might know I voted when I'm checked off on the list when I vote, but the government does not know for whom I voted. This privacy of the ballot box assures we are not coerced into voting for someone.

I prove I am eligible to buy guns, and the government might know I bought something when the gun retailer checks the system to see if I am on the approved list, but the government doesn't know what I bought, or how much I bought.

That is the system I would like to see.

I would even go a step further, Every firearm should be 100% tax-deductible with no registration required...

How are you going to claim your deduction without telling the government what guns you own?

And I am very much against deductions, credits, and exemptions. They are government gifts which cause higher tax rates and deficit spending.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Correct, and the first isn't absolute by any means

Really?

Do tell? What restrictions on the 1st Amendment are there?

Next time you get on a plane, tell the flight attendant you have a bomb.

 

[Windship]

I know someone who got in an argument with his brother and his sister in law called police. Police labeled it misdemeanor assault and now he cant own a gun for 10 years. I was going to check the last circle but the law is sometimes wrong. Its gov control. My opinion is you should be able to carry anything you want in any way you want and anywhere you want unless you are a convicted felon of a violent crime with a victim. Period.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Common sense is not common in those with a gun fetish:

Or found in any of the restrictions you seek.