Gun Industry's Killing in Killing

[Hydra009]

^ a good example what I've been talking about.  All the emphasis on "the right to keep and bear arms" with little to no consideration of the rest of the sentence, specifically why it's important for people to have arms.  This one even has the added hypocrisy of accusing someone else of glossing things over while glossing things over.  Cringeworthy.

[Shiranu]

If you don't like guns; don't own 'em.  Your call.   

Oh, that will protect me from getting shot. Thanks!

(Actually it statistically will... significantly... as well as protecting my family from being shot. But what's a few thousand upon thousands of dead people to, "Ooo it's cool I want it!")

"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."

Chill, I think you missed the entire point of the sentence; the rights shall not be infringed so as to not hamper the well regulated Militia from doing it's duty, protecting the security of a free State.

It is not saying that the average person should have a gun because they should have the right to a gun, it's saying the average person should have a gun because (at the time it was drafted) it was a smart idea; you needed the commoners armed to protect the government since it was too weak to maintain a sizable standing army.

However, like the idea that blacks were not fully human or the prohibition of alcohol, situations change. A militia is no longer part of our culture, and thus (as worded in the Constitution), the primary reason for having an armed populace no longer exists. It is an outdated loophole that served it's purpose and now needs to be retired because of how heavily it is exploited and misused to justify an untrained, unregulated population owning firearms.

Tell me, what good is a Glock or a Bushmaster going to do when the Russians or Chinese invade? The only reasonable application would be if we were to start training people in the use of anti-air and anti-tank weaponry and keeping them well regulated. If we want to take the second amendment seriously and for what it is, then forget fighting for your handguns and rifles... get out there and fight for your right to own the latest and greatest military hardware you can so you can do what the Founding Father's intended and protect the country from foreign threats. Or better yet, just join our standing army which replaced the militia system.

[chill98]

the Right of THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall NOT be infringed.

We the People.
Unabridged Freedom of Speech.
RIGHT of We the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be infringed.

I read it and its clear to me.  I think its clear to you which is why you focus on the state militias:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29

Clearly, militias were organised by the state to function for the state.  This is separate from the caveat built into the constitution:

the Right of THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall NOT be infringed.

[Hydra009]

the Right of THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall NOT be infringed.

We the People.
Unabridged Freedom of Speech.
RIGHT of We the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be infringed.

Hence the problem.  I'm reading the actual amendment in its entirety and you're reading only that.  We're not on the same page.

I know literacy isn't exactly a conservative forte, but being able to read an entire sentence relating to gun ownership is a crucial component of debating government policy as it relates to gun ownership.  Without even the pretense of understanding what you're talking about, you won't be taken seriously.

[chill98]

Hence the problem.  I'm reading the actual amendment in its entirety and you're reading only that.  We're not on the same page.

I know literacy isn't exactly a conservative forte, but being able to read an entire sentence relating to gun ownership is a crucial component of debating government policy as it relates to gun ownership.  Without even the pretense of understanding what you're talking about, you won't be taken seriously.

While I am sure you believe this of yourself, ie that you are reading the whole sentence, one only has to read what you wrote in post #29 with your emphasis on 'glossing over' well regulated militia to emphasize your point, you ignore the actual meaning. 

As the constitution was being drawn up, the founders recognized each states right to have a regulated militia - to defend the state itself, but also recognized the potential for abuse by the state leading to " the Right of the People to KEEP and  bear arms shall not be infringed.

Enumerating both the states right to have a militia and the peoples right to Keep and Bear Arms.  No american has to join a state approved militia to Keep and/or bear arms.

Its not me who is ignoring 1/2 of the 2nd amendment to propel a personal agenda.

While not a hunter myself...

http://gothunts.com/hunting-age-requirements/

[Shiranu]

If the intended reason to own guns freely no longer exists, then the right to own guns freely logically ceased as well.

[chill98]

If the intended reason to own guns freely no longer exists, then the right to own guns freely logically ceased as well.

That's only if you believe the 2nd amendment applied only to a state's right to defend itself and ignore "the right of the people to KEEP and bear arms SHALL not be infringed".   

Logic is not applicable to your translation of the 2nd amendment.   The only applicable part that can be discarded (well replaced) is Well regulated militia can be replaced with well regulated State/county/local police....

You didn't read the hunting link did you?  Lots of people hunt.  Nothing to do with militias.

[Shiranu]

*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have came to this thread.

That's only if you believe the 2nd amendment applied only to a state's right to defend itself and ignore "the right of the people to KEEP and bear arms SHALL not be infringed".   

Let's break the sentence down...

"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."

-"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the subject and independent clause of the sentence.
-"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is the verb and dependent clause of the sentence.

The two are not separate statements but one over-arching statement. If the second amendment read as such,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shale not have it's right to bear arms infringed. Nor too shale the right of the American People to bear arms, (insert reason here),  be infringed."

That is simple English and simple logic.

I don't really need to read the hunting link, given that I own hunting rifles and shotguns, and grew up in the country where we occasionally had to shoot animals. I am not against people owning bolt-action hunting rifles with proper permits and background checks. But the police/military grade weapons, your handguns, "civilian" assault rifle knock-offs, etc. have no place in anything but a well-regulated militias' hands... which as we don't have anymore, belong only with actual professionals.


And even then, I don't think my right to these guns are protected by the second amendment since it is not applicable to my situation. I am not a militiaman, so it is not protecting my right to own them and if the state wanted to come and take them... they have every right to, as far as I see it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Cafeteria constitutionalists, gotta love 'em.

[Hydra009]

Let's break the sentence down...

-"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the subject and independent clause of the sentence.
-"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is the verb and dependent clause of the sentence.

The two are not separate statements but one over-arching statement.

Exactly.  And of course, things have drastically changed since that was written.  America's initially weak military position has greatly improved, militias are no longer necessary, and gun lethality is much, much higher.  All of these changing circumstances naturally lead one to re-examine the amendment (or examine it for the first time, for many conservatives).  This sort of adjustment has already happened in most other Western industrialized countries - countries that sought and found a good balance between gun rights and not having a national tragedy almost every month.

[chill98]

*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have came to this thread.

The two are not separate statements but one over-arching statement. If the second amendment read as such,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shale not have it's right to bear arms infringed. Nor too shale the right of the American People to bear arms, (insert reason here),  be infringed."

That is simple English and simple logic.

"A well regulated Militia (police force nowadays) being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is no requirement for an 'insert reason here'.  And lookie!  I didn't have to substitute nearly as many words as you!   Occams razor.

I have no problem with the police force, working as an army for the state, being well regulated.  If the framers meant "the right of the people (while being well regulated) to Keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, they would have wrote it that way.

I don't really need to read the hunting link, given that I own hunting rifles and shotguns, and grew up in the country where we occasionally had to shoot animals.

Because it has nothing to do with a militia and only the individual's right to own a gun. 

I am not against people owning bolt-action hunting rifles with proper permits and background checks. But the police/military grade weapons, your handguns, "civilian" assault rifle knock-offs, etc. have no place in anything but a well-regulated militias' hands... which as we don't have anymore, belong only with actual professionals.

Well that's your opinion.  And I have absolutely no problem with you choosing not to own an AK-47.

And even then, I don't think my right to these guns are protected by the second amendment since it is not applicable to my situation. I am not a militiaman, so it is not protecting my right to own them and if the state wanted to come and take them... they have every right to, as far as I see it.

Well, thankfully, you see it wrong :)


I did Not Know you can get a shoot the guns package!  Someday....

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/g2228/drive-a-tank-here/ 

[Shiranu]

You can't change how the English language works just because you disagree with it. You added new subjects to the sentence, the exact opposite of what Occams Razor would do.

Also, police and militia is not interchangeable.

Your entire argument is therefore irrelevant because it is based on the assumption the second amendment expands far beyond what it linguistically implies.

Legally the rights you enjoy for guns are granted through separate rulings by the supreme court that interpret the amendment as they want ( because believe it or not, the Constitution is not an infallible legal bible), but as the Founders wrote it it only protects the need for militia to have firearms, and as militia are obsolete so too is that law. And again, militia and police are two separate entities... but even saying police are the continuation, you do realise they are issued guns and are well regulated and trained, right? If anything you are only furthering the argument that the unregulated, untrained should not have free access since it's the militia ( police ) it protects.

[Mike Cl]

  Reflect on the 1st ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm sure you know that one cannot freely, legally, or constitutionally shout fire in a crowed theater.  And so the constitution may say that congress cannot pass laws that abridge that right--but it did.  And one cannot libel or slander, either.  More abridging. 

In fact, the constitution has been changed many, many times.  And the constitution even included a method in which it could and should be changed.  The founders realized that change would come and they also thought, therefore, a system should be in place for that to happen.  So, we have the amendments.  If the constitution did not have ability to be amended, then only white, landed men would still be running the country and the slaves would still be slaves. 

[chill98]

You can't change how the English language works just because you disagree with it. You added new subjects to the sentence, the exact opposite of what Occams Razor would do.

You're funny! 

Also, police and militia is not interchangeable.

It sure can be and was just fine in my example. 

Your entire argument is therefore irrelevant because it is based on the assumption the second amendment expands far beyond what it linguistically implies.

Legally the rights you enjoy for guns are granted through separate rulings by the supreme court that interpret the amendment as they want

Again, thats your interpretation of the 2nd.  Its not mine and the reality is, its your argument that is irrelevant as demonstrated by separate rulings by SCotUS. 

If anything you are only furthering the argument that the unregulated, untrained should not have free access since it's the militia ( police ) it protects.

Only when the 'militia' is doing the states business!  If Bubba is gonna be riding shotgun because the ETs have just taken over the football stadium, yeah, I want him to follow the same rules the cops have to, until they take back the stadium.   Once Bubba is headed back to the homestead, it ain't none of the states business.  It is still illegal for Bubba to shoot at the roadsigns on the way home regardless of what caliber bullet his gun barrel is designed for, just like its still illegal for him to be over-celebratory on the victory for the team. ie his BAC better be below 0.08... until he gets home that is... 

And finally, because you don't feel the need to read the hunting link, there are wide variations on the rules regarding kids and hunting with guns.  Again, not militia related but individual right to keep and bear arms outside of doing the states business.

There are clearly two issues addressed in #2. The state right and the individual right. 

Just like the 1st deals with multiple issues.  Religion, speech/press, assembly and petition government.

[chill98]

I'm sure you know that one cannot freely, legally, or constitutionally shout fire in a crowed theater.  And so the constitution may say that congress cannot pass laws that abridge that right--but it did.  And one cannot libel or slander, either.  More abridging. 

Depends on the context doesn't it?  I mean an actor on stage in that crowded theater can most certainly shout "Fire" during his performance.  And the bar for libel/slander has been set kinda high, much to the dismay of many public figures, yet to the relief of many cartoonists/actors/commentators etc.

And iirc it's always been illegal to go into a theater and discharge a weapon, again regardless of what caliber bullet used so your point is moot at best. 

In fact, the constitution has been changed many, many times.  And the constitution even included a method in which it could and should be changed.  The founders realized that change would come and they also thought, therefore, a system should be in place for that to happen.  So, we have the amendments.  If the constitution did not have ability to be amended, then only white, landed men would still be running the country and the slaves would still be slaves.

But it ain't been changed regarding the 2nd has it?  Rather some of those added amendments have insured the 2nd does apply to the individual.