Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[wiegeabo]

The 'well' part of Well Regulated is also important.

A lot of the ideas I'm seeing from reactionary politicians fall under 'Poorly Regulated'.

 

[Mad Love]

Politics is about noticing only what you want.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

The biggest problem with being conservative or liberal, and living in a state that leans the other way is, your political voice gets lost. I mean, a Republican in California has about as much impact as a Democrat in Texas.

I'm resigned to the fact that the only part of my ballot that actually means anything is probably going to be on local bond and tax measures, county commissioners, and state representative.

 

[Stikmann]

Does anyone notice the WELL REGULATED part of the 2nd Amendment or what?

Unfortunately, that part is conveniently overlooked.

 

[SV Fan]

I'm resigned to the fact that the only part of my ballot that actually means anything is probably going to be on local bond and tax measures, county commissioners, and state representative.

That's why they should go to a popular vote. Every vote, everywhere holds the exact same value

 

[Sun_Down]

So, tell me what you believe the so called gun show loop hole is.

It's one of those political, media terms that gets under my skin.

Really Kelly? You're going to explain to me the term gun show loop hole?


I know what it means and I know that the term "gun show loop hole" gets thrown about by politicians and especially the media and it makes people think that all gun sales at gun shows don't follow the proper paperwork and back ground check.
I wanted to know what Sun Down thought it meant.

He probably would have done the same thing I

I've been away from SHH for a while but wanted to just recap. Kable24 doesn't understand American gun laws and that makes him/her ANGRY.

Bottom line: our country's gun homicide rate is way too high, compared to other 1st world countries. Higher rates of gun ownership are correlated with higher homicide rates, statistically speaking.No, one law won't that problem completely. But that is no reason not to try to do better as a country. We owe it to our children to TRY to do better.

 

[Bill]

Unfortunately, that part is conveniently overlooked.

Overlooked by whom, exactly? Gun Control advocates like to use the term to mean regulated by the Government, but that is not at all in context with what the Founders had in mind when they penned it since it was placed there to be a check for the standing army raised by Congress in case it became hostile.

 

[Hotwire]

That's why they should go to a popular vote. Every vote, everywhere holds the exact same value

The downside to that would be that the cost of campaigning would skyrocket. Instead of the candidates being able to narrow their focus to "battleground" states as the states that lean their way anyway, they would have to campaign to everyone in the country.

Overlooked by whom, exactly? Gun Control advocates like to use the term to mean regulated by the Government, but that is not at all in context with what the Founders had in mind when they penned it since it was placed there to be a check for the standing army raised by Congress in case it became hostile.

So, exactly where is this well regulated civilian militia?

 

[Bill]

So, exactly where is this well regulated civilian militia?

The militia was the people. Anytime the Constitution refers to the people, that's what it means, the people. Well regulated was training and discipline for which the people were responsible to maintain.

 

[Hotwire]

The militia was the people. Anytime the Constitution refers to the people, that's what it means, the people. Well regulated was training and discipline for which the people were responsible to maintain.

So, as it was pointed out, we're not doing that part about discipline and training.

 

[Mad Love]

I wish the founding fathers would come back just to straighten out how fallible and transient their beliefs are.

 

[Bill]

So, as it was pointed out, we're not doing that part about discipline and training.

Who exactly? You're average soldier hits the range once a year, maybe twice if they're lucky, outside of combat. They do not have the option of going on their own, or at least that was the case when I was in. Same with police officers. Unless they go to the range on their own, they are not required to fire their weapon until qualification time. Most gun owning civilians have range memberships and most, though not all, go at least once a month. Disciplines such as simple gun operation, safety and storage are acquired by most gun owners growing up. So that leaves tactical training. I would certainly agree with the notion that gun owners should take a class in how, why and when to employ their firearms in various situations according to law. But what, exactly, does that have to do with getting people to not be violent in the first place, or keeping guns out their hands? If you want Government regulations, I'd like to know which ones will work while keeping the integrity of the amendment in place, and actually addressing the violence part of gun violence.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Does anyone notice the WELL REGULATED part of the 2nd Amendment or what?

The "well regulated" part doesn't actually refer to gun laws though. It's referred to the simple fact of having a militia that knows how to use a gun. Back when the Second Amendment was ratified, the United States looked down upon having a large army, so it would rely on drafting people during times of national emergency like the Civil War and the World Wars. Every able bodied male was essentially required to enroll with the militia and have a minimum amount of military training. The Second Amendment was essentially America's line of defense.

And our government was kind of broke back then as well. They couldn't just get away with printing massive amounts of money without serious repercussions like they can today. So instead of buying lots and lots of guns that we didn't have the money for, telling people that their gun rights cannot be revoked was a way for the government to save a ****load of money, especially since civilian rifles were essentially on par with military rifles back then.

Now the Second Amendment doesn't prohibit any form of gun regulation, nor is it a way to give people a way to fight against government tyranny like the NRA would like us to think. But the phrase "well regulated" just has nothing to do with gun regulation. I really think that this is the part of the gun debate that just really irritates me. Both the gun nuts and gun control advocates essentially have no ****ing clue what the hell the Second Amendment means.

 

[Hotwire]

Who exactly? You're average soldier hits the range once a year, maybe twice if they're lucky, outside of combat. They do not have the option of going on their own, or at least that was the case when I was in. Same with police officers. Unless they go to the range on their own, they are not required to fire their weapon until qualification time. Most gun owning civilians have range memberships and most, though not all, go at least once a month. Disciplines such as simple gun operation, safety and storage are acquired by most gun owners growing up. So that leaves tactical training. I would certainly agree with the notion that gun owners should take a class in how, why and when to employ their firearms in various situations according to law. But what, exactly, does that have to do with getting people to not be violent in the first place, or keeping guns out their hands? If you want Government regulations, I'd like to know which ones will work while keeping the integrity of the amendment in place, and actually addressing the violence part of gun violence.

I'm referring to civilian gun owners organizing their militia. Or is it more than one? I don't see any of them recruiting members. What's their rank system? I mean, if this well regulated militia is supposed to be made up of civilian gun owners, how are they set up?

That's the point we were trying to make.

 

[Thundercrack85]

To be fair, even if the Second Amendment was only about militias (which most constitutional scholars would dispute), that's a rather moot point, since, there are numerous Supreme Court rulings giving normal citizens the rights to own a firearm.

The right to bear arms is as enshrined by the law as a right can be.

 

[hippie_hunter]

To be fair, even if the Second Amendment was only about militias (which most constitutional scholars would dispute), that's a rather moot point, since, there are numerous Supreme Court rulings giving normal citizens the rights to own a firearm.

The right to bear arms is as enshrined by the law as a right can be.

Exactly! You hit the nail on the head.

While the government does have the right to regulate firearms, the Second Amendment still clearly states and has been supported by the Supreme Court, that private citizens have the right to bear arms. Yeah, militias are out of date in today's day and age. American defense policy has changed dramatically, government supported militias don't exist anymore, and the parity between civilian and military firearms has become nonexistent. But even with the change in times, the Second Amendment clearly states that the civilian populace has the right to bear arms. The militia argument that the gun control lobby tries to bring up against owning a gun is as dumb and ridiculous as the arguments that the gun nuts come up with. It's exactly as you say, it's a moot point.

 

[Kelly]

To be fair, even if the Second Amendment was only about militias (which most constitutional scholars would dispute), that's a rather moot point, since, there are numerous Supreme Court rulings giving normal citizens the rights to own a firearm.

The right to bear arms is as enshrined by the law as a right can be.

Yep....it always makes me laugh when people forget about the dozens of Supreme Court rulings that have upheld much of the Constitution...throughout our history.

People forget that we do have a process that is used quite often when interpreting the Constitution....OH YEAH, THAT THING THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS SUPPOSED TO DO, NOT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

 

[Handsome Rob]

Saw this on Facebook from a conservative writer named Julia Gorin (never heard of her before today). A bit of hyperbole, sure, but a welcome reprieve for gun enthusiasts tired of being told they are "overcompensating." I hope the Hype's Gun Enthusiasts enjoy it.

The Anti-Gun Male - Julia Gorin

LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable-*-so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.


A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.


He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.


Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.


People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.


Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.


The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.


No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.


Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).


In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.

 

[Sun_Down]

Nope. Just don't want children dying any more than they have to.

 

[wiegeabo]

Then let's go after those illegal guns that kill thousands of children and teens a year.

 

[Victarion]

I'd go after the people using them first.

 

[wiegeabo]

Sorta what I meant.

 

[terry78]

There are just too many loopholes and straw arguments on both sides for them to come to an agreement. A lot of "what ifs" and "if this, then that"

 

[dnno1]

Baseball Bats and Hammers Do Not Kill More People Than Guns
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_than_guns_is.html?wpisrc=newsletter_myslate

 

[dnno1]

Exactly! You hit the nail on the head.

While the government does have the right to regulate firearms, the Second Amendment still clearly states and has been supported by the Supreme Court, that private citizens have the right to bear arms. Yeah, militias are out of date in today's day and age. American defense policy has changed dramatically, government supported militias don't exist anymore, and the parity between civilian and military firearms has become nonexistent. But even with the change in times, the Second Amendment clearly states that the civilian populace has the right to bear arms. The militia argument that the gun control lobby tries to bring up against owning a gun is as dumb and ridiculous as the arguments that the gun nuts come up with. It's exactly as you say, it's a moot point.

This is true but the same suppreme court also said that the government can decide what arms you can have. They can legally restrict the type of arms what devices is used with I just the same.