Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[Kelly]

Just so you know, Mexico gets most of their guns from us and that was true even before Fast & Furious...

That has been discussed quite extensively in this thread...

 

[Spider-Who?]

The 2nd Amendment, in its original intent, was not meant for everybody to carry and keep their own arsenal of any and all types of firearms.

The right of the people shall not be infringed. People. Not groups. Not industry. Not militia. Not army. PEOPLE. Yes, I think we can all admit that some limitations are expected - no person needs a tank or a fully automatic machine gun. But a semi-automatic rifles and pistols are absolutely within reason.

Besides, the founders never dreamed of semi-automatics that could shoot 5 rounds per second!

How do you know? I would like to think that the founders were smart enough to realize that guns - as with all weaponry - would evolve to become deadlier and easier to fire; hell, they saw evidence of this in their life time. This argument of painting the Founders as small-minded people ignorant of firearms is such a tired tactic - everything they thought and wrote dealt with forward-thinking, what the future may hold and how to protect it, and what suddenly, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (a HUGE deal even back then), they become totally clueless and thought that the evolution of weapons would be stagnated and 100 years for then people would still only have muskets.

Also, you say "semi-automatics that could shoot 5 rounds per second!" as if that actually means anything. A semi-automatic can only fire as fast as the person can pull the trigger. One trigger pull = one bullet fired. And its not nearly as easy as you think; I imagine you sitting in your chair right now pantomiming firing a gun as fast as you can - that isn't an accurate estimation at all, take into account the recoil, replacing your hand after recoil and realigning your sights...that takes time for the vast majority of people. You can't make laws based on the select few who are masters, who aren't in any way an accurate representation of the public.

 

[Victarion]

I'm not meaning to sound like a conspiracy nut that thinks fighting the government is easy...but the founding fathers were in favor of upheavals every 20 years in the interest of "watering the tree of liberty with blood". That would lead me to believe that they wouldn't be too rustled over semi-automatics.

 

[dnno1]

So because the founding fathers never envisioned semi automatic rifles, that means they shouldn't be protected under the 2nd?

By that way of thinking then they never envisioned radio, tv, internet, telephones and any other way of getting free speech out so using anything of that nature voids the 1st.

You could probably own a canon or something more severe than that, but you would need something like a letter of marquee to do that. I guess I wrote that to show that the intent of the founders was to ensure that there was some government regulation over that just as there should be for normal firearms.

 

[voyzovrezon]

The right of the people shall not be infringed. People. Not groups. Not industry. Not militia. Not army. PEOPLE. Yes, I think we can all admit that some limitations are expected - no person needs a tank or a fully automatic machine gun. But a semi-automatic rifles and pistols are absolutely within reason.


How do you know? I would like to think that the founders were smart enough to realize that guns - as with all weaponry - would evolve to become deadlier and easier to fire; hell, they saw evidence of this in their life time. This argument of painting the Founders as small-minded people ignorant of firearms is such a tired tactic - everything they thought and wrote dealt with forward-thinking, what the future may hold and how to protect it, and what suddenly, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (a HUGE deal even back then), they become totally clueless and thought that the evolution of weapons would be stagnated and 100 years for then people would still only have muskets.

Also, you say "semi-automatics that could shoot 5 rounds per second!" as if that actually means anything. A semi-automatic can only fire as fast as the person can pull the trigger. One trigger pull = one bullet fired. And its not nearly as easy as you think; I imagine you sitting in your chair right now pantomiming firing a gun as fast as you can - that isn't an accurate estimation at all, take into account the recoil, replacing your hand after recoil and realigning your sights...that takes time for the vast majority of people. You can't make laws based on the select few who are masters, who aren't in any way an accurate representation of the public.

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.

People refers to militia in the first part of the sentence. And congress has the power to regulate it. If PEOPLE in general had the right to keep and bear arms, the amendment would have been written that way.

you wrote:

"This argument of painting the Founders as small-minded people ignorant of firearms is such a tired tactic - everything they thought and wrote dealt with forward-thinking, what the future may hold and how to protect it,..."

I'd agree with you half way on this. Not everything they thought was forward thinking. If I remember history correctly, they were slave owners. When they wrote "all men" they didn't mean ALL men (or women for that matter).

They were hypocrites. Elitist scum who just happened to put some good ideas down on paper.

 

[wiegeabo]

They were hypocrites. Elitist scum who just happened to put some good ideas down on paper.

Completely irrelevant.

 

[jmc]

Tell me if any of this from our neck of the woods sounds familiar to you folks across the Pacific.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 

[Spider-Who?]

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.

People refers to militia in the first part of the sentence. And congress has the power to regulate it. If PEOPLE in general had the right to keep and bear arms, the amendment would have been written that way.

If they meant only militia members, they would have specified in the second portion, but they specifically said "the people", not "members of the militia".

Secondly, you have to understand what a militia is. A militia is a group of volunteer citizens. A militia, especially when the amendment was written, does not provide supplies, munitions, arms, etc for its members; aspects are funded by the state, but the civilians themselves bring their own weapons and supplies. With that in mind, how can a well regulated militia arm themselves if The People can not own weapons? It can't.

Also, calling the founding fathers "hypocrite scum bags" shows you don't know too much about history, if the faults of society of the time is your reasoning. For instance, are you aware that many of the founding fathers did not own slaves, and if they did, they regretted it? They even attempted to end slavery, but the new country was far too dependent on its existence at the time that it would crush the economy (and dismantling such an integral part of the economy would be a huge issue among states who were trying to build a nation). That's not an excuse for slavery, but it's something that has to be understood. It was a completely different world back then.

 

[Thundercrack85]

While there are parallels between Australia and America, there are also some key distinctions. Most notably the fact that America violently rebelled against Britain. The country was basically founded by a well armed posse.

The right for people to own and bear arms wasn't controversial in the 18th century, since, a lot of people couldn't survive without them. And then you still had a century of Americans "taming" the frontier.

Arguably the American fondness for guns didn't reach its peak until the Old West days, when everyone and their mother had a gun.

 

[voyzovrezon]

Spider-Who? wrote:

my words in bold.

If they meant only militia members, they would have specified in the second portion, but they specifically said "the people", not "members of the militia".

Again, note the words "well regulated." Those in congress who fail to enact any type of legislation regulating fire arms are neglecting their duty to uphold the constitution.

Secondly, you have to understand what a militia is. A militia is a group of volunteer citizens. A militia, especially when the amendment was written, does not provide supplies, munitions, arms, etc for its members; aspects are funded by the state, but the civilians themselves bring their own weapons and supplies. With that in mind, how can a well regulated militia arm themselves if The People can not own weapons? It can't.

Here's what the original wording of the 2nd amendment said: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.

The words state and country are interchangeable. It is the duty of congress to provide militias (or now armies) with those guns and supplies.

NOTE: Neither I, nor the constitution, says that no one is allowed to own a gun. The main issue is that guns should be "well regulated" according to the constitution. I think the founders understood that private gun ownership was a necessity for hunting and protection. It's just not worded in the constitution and perhaps it should be for clarity.

from the constitution:

article 1 section 8 clause 16--congress shall have the power to provide the calling forth of a militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, to provide the 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


Also, calling the founding fathers "hypocrite scum bags" shows you don't know too much about history, if the faults of society of the time is your reasoning. For instance, are you aware that many of the founding fathers did not own slaves, and if they did, they regretted it? They even attempted to end slavery, but the new country was far too dependent on its existence at the time that it would crush the economy (and dismantling such an integral part of the economy would be a huge issue among states who were trying to build a nation). That's not an excuse for slavery, but it's something that has to be understood. It was a completely different world back then.

Hence, elitists. Note ending slavery because it would effect the economy is like our corrupt politicians today not regulating the banks (or when they do, the bill has the banks stamp of approval) because it would effect the economy. Yet look at how many people have been foreclosed on because of corruption, yet congress still fails to enact any kind of effective regulation. They even get away with money laundering to terrorist organizations and they use the excuse "too big to fail."

The founders had some great ideas and were brave to stand up to the crown. But they were also corrupt.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Your argument seems to change. At this point, if you are simply calling for better regulation, then you and I are in agreement. That being said, I believe we have a pretty reasonable grasp on what is and is not appropriate for civilian ownership. We could do better in terms of background checks and restrictions and penalties.

Hence, elitists. Note ending slavery because it would effect the economy is like our corrupt politicians today not regulating the banks (or when they do, the bill has the banks stamp of approval) because it would effect the economy. Yet look at how many people have been foreclosed on because of corruption, yet congress still fails to enact any kind of effective regulation. They even get away with money laundering to terrorist organizations and they use the excuse "too big to fail."

The founders had some great ideas and were brave to stand up to the crown. But they were also corrupt.

I don't think you fully understand not only the weight of the issue, but the movements attempted to abolish it at the time, and the meaning/importance of the comments and laws they did make concerning it. Here's a brief article concerning it.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

Ben Franklin, for example, freed his slaves and became president of an abolishonist movement. Washington, upon his death, freed his slaves and had his estate not only fully provide for elderly slaves, but also funded a full education for the children. He actually fought and hoped for a country where all races could live and be treated equally.

 

[SV Fan]

Sort of funny that the world Regulation is put int eh second amendment since it seems most people that are vocal about gun rights scream how much they hate regulation(with the possible exception when it comes to creating crazy abortion regulations then it's fine)

 

[Spider-Who?]

I think the problem for most people is how far regulation goes, not that there is regulation. Also, technically, the word regulation refers to the militia, not fire arms, as in a regulated militia - a disciplined and organized group as opposed to a mob.

 

[voyzovrezon]

I don't think you fully understand not only the weight of the issue, but the movements attempted to abolish it at the time, and the meaning/importance of the comments and laws they did make concerning it. Here's a brief article concerning it.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

Ben Franklin, for example, freed his slaves and became president of an abolishonist movement. Washington, upon his death, freed his slaves and had his estate not only fully provide for elderly slaves, but also funded a full education for the children. He actually fought and hoped for a country where all races could live and be treated equally.

Very informative. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Spider-Who?]

Very informative. Thanks for sharing!

Your welcome. Honestly, I find the topic extremely intriguing. We KNOW it was terrible thing, and trying to wrap our minds around the mentality of the time is hard, if not impossible, but I feel it's important to do so.

Honestly, I think that education is so (justifiably) obsessed with simply saying that slavery was bad, that they neglect to address the fact that it was not only a huge point of contention long before the civil war, but also a major factor considered in the building of this country. Like I mentioned before, the majority of founding fathers tried or wanted to abolish it under the constitution (even Jefferson wanted it abolished, but in his racism he felt ex-slaves and whites wouldn't be able to co-exist, and his "solution" of deportation couldn't gain traction); but it would have torn the nation apart before it even got to become one, so they restricted and made laws concerning it where they could and pushed it aside to be dealt with after the country was firmly united. Hell, the infamous "three-fifths of a person", while seen today as an insult to human rights, was actually an important move forward in civil rights at the time. Remember, these guys were THE progressives, THE thinkers of the day, they acknowledged slavery wasn't right, but overall, their hands were tied. In this day and age, it's not PC to admit it any of that, much to the hindrance of fully understanding, and appreciating history.

"The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."
-- George Mason
"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil."
-- Patrick Henry, letter to Robert Pleasants, January 18, 1773
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821
"Another of my wishes is to depend as little as possible on the labour of slaves."
-- James Madison, Letter to R. H. Lee, July 17, 1785
^^^ this quote actually says quite a lot on the perception of slaves - slaves weren't just seen as property they chose to have, they were considered essential to life at the time.
"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."
--John Jay,
"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."
-- George Washington

Make no mistake, it was a terrible thing. Even if slave owners treated their slaves as well as (and considered them to be) family, like Washington, it doesn't take away the fact that slavery was wrong in the highest sense of the word. But we can't be afraid to understand the mentality and culture of the time; understanding how dependent the country was on it, how impossible it was to abolish outright without loosing everything they fought for in the revolutionary war...had the 2nd Continental Congress abolished outright, there literally would have been a civil war in the 1780s and this country wouldn't exist. They did what the felt was best for the Nation at the time, and hoped for a chance to make the choice they couldn't make then. Okay, that's enough. Don't mean to derail the thread

 

[Kelly]

Sort of funny that the world Regulation is put int eh second amendment since it seems most people that are vocal about gun rights scream how much they hate regulation(with the possible exception when it comes to creating crazy abortion regulations then it's fine)

I think you mean "anti-abortion" stance....because regulating abortion is needed or we will have what we have right now in Philadelphia....

I'm Pro-Choice, but I sure as hell do not want late term abortions....or abortions at anytime, anyplace that you want....not good in my opinion.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I think you mean "anti-abortion" stance....because regulating abortion is needed or we will have what we have right now in Philadelphia....

I'm Pro-Choice, but I sure as hell do not want late term abortions....or abortions at anytime, anyplace that you want....not good in my opinion.

I really don't think making abortion legal and regulating it will stop incidents like with Gosnell. Look at all the back ally plastic surgeons.

We have laws against killing terminally ill patients whose lives are nothing but pain and suffering, and yet it's morally acceptable to kill an unborn baby because the pregnancy, parenthood or adoption is inconvenient?

Make abortion legal - and HEAVILY regulated - for victims of rape and instances where the life of the mother is on the line. Anything else is a selfish act that shouldn't be legal.

This is all my own little opinion, of course.

 

[SV Fan]

I think you mean "anti-abortion" stance....because regulating abortion is needed or we will have what we have right now in Philadelphia....

You mean they guy who broke regulations and now is going to court?

When I refer to crazy regulations I am talking about all the regulations created in Republican states which are basically going out of their way to make running an abortion clinic or getting an abortion near impossible. Basically creating trap laws. Other crazy republican regulations they tried to pass were vaginal probes for the sake of shaming the person who gets the abortion(which due to backlash got limited to ultra sound scans) and having doctors who perform abortions being forced to read a woman a set of false claims not backed up by science.

I think the perfect example of a trap law would be in the 30s, they made a law you have to bring your weed to Washington to get some sort of certification/stamp to get sold. Soon after that they made a law in Washington DC that it's illegal to possess weed(which in turn means you couldn't bring your weed to Washington to get inspected). Many of these Republican(who claim they hate regulation) laws are on par with that

 

[Kelly]

You mean they guy who broke regulations and now is going to court?

When I refer to crazy regulations I am talking about all the regulations created in Republican states which are basically going out of their way to make running an abortion clinic or getting an abortion near impossible. Basically creating trap laws. Other crazy republican regulations they tried to pass were vaginal probes for the sake of shaming the person who gets the abortion(which due to backlash got limited to ultra sound scans) and having doctors who perform abortions being forced to read a woman a set of false claims not backed up by science.

I think the perfect example of a trap law would be in the 30s, they made a law you have to bring your weed to Washington to get some sort of certification/stamp to get sold. Soon after that they made a law in Washington DC that it's illegal to possess weed(which in turn means you couldn't bring your weed to Washington to get inspected). Many of these Republican(who claim they hate regulation) laws are on par with that

Well, they are fighting on whether or not he broke regulations....which is scary as hell if he gets off on even one of those charges....

Well, with any politician Dems or Reps....it is more about "their own personal ideology and their pocketbooks" than it is "pure ideology" and what is the "consent of the people"....

It happens on both sides, its called hypocrisy and I have seen few politicians that didn't wallow in it on a daily basis.

 

[SV Fan]

Well, with any politician Dems or Reps....it is more about "their own personal ideology and their pocketbooks" than it is "pure ideology" and what is the "consent of the people"....

It happens on both sides, its called hypocrisy and I have seen few politicians that didn't wallow in it on a daily basis.

I have no problem if a politician claims he hates regulations but if you make that claim, practice what you preach. On a whole I never seen any Democrats who claim they hate regulations or want to get rid of them. Anybody who claims they hate regulations then votes or signs one of these many abortion stopping bills(due to strict regulations on abortion) to me is a hypocrite.

My theory is don't say you hate regulations, specify which regulations you would get rid of and which you want to keep but saying you want to get rid of regulations is just a "talking point"(and a very simplified one to a tough issue what should and shouldn't be regulated, or how much regulation should we have) and nothing else(one that many times we hear in this fight for gun control on the Republicans side as if we don't need some regulations for guns). it's a basic case the second you do vote for regulating something, the claim of hating regulations comes across very hollow.

 

[Kelly]

I really don't think making abortion legal and regulating it will stop incidents like with Gosnell. Look at all the back ally plastic surgeons.

We have laws against killing terminally ill patients whose lives are nothing but pain and suffering, and yet it's morally acceptable to kill an unborn baby because the pregnancy, parenthood or adoption is inconvenient?

Make abortion legal - and HEAVILY regulated - for victims of rape and instances where the life of the mother is on the line. Anything else is a selfish act that shouldn't be legal.

This is all my own little opinion, of course.

He was in practice for 33 ****ing years....there is no way those are the ONLY times that he did that....HE WAS NOT BEING WATCHED, REGULATED, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT....some one ****ed up royally.

I'm not necessarily advocating more regulation although I think abortions past the first trimester, unless the woman's life is in danger, should be outlawed....but SOMEONE, allowing that to happen....****ed up. ROYALLY....

 

[Spider-Who?]

He was in practice for 33 ****ing years....there is no way those are the ONLY times that he did that....HE WAS NOT BEING WATCHED, REGULATED, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT....some one ****ed up royally.

I'm not necessarily advocating more regulation although I think abortions past the first trimester, unless the woman's life is in danger, should be outlawed....but SOMEONE, allowing that to happen....****ed up. ROYALLY....

Well that's kind of my point; regulation isn't a magic button where suddenly everyone is being watched and scrutinized. Even with regulation, there will be your back alley abortionists, just like there's back alley *insert other regulated things here*

From what I've read, Planned Parenthood knew all about this guy, but did nothing about it.

 

[Kelly]

Well that's kind of my point; regulation isn't a magic button where suddenly everyone is being watched and scrutinized. Even with regulation, there will be your back alley abortionists, just like there's back alley *insert other regulated things here*

From what I've read, Planned Parenthood knew all about this guy, but did nothing about it.

Well, they are impressing me about as much as ACORN does these days.....

They are a needed agency, especially in lower income areas....but they need to be watched VERY closely....

 

[SV Fan]

From what I've read, Planned Parenthood knew all about this guy, but did nothing about it.

Legit news source or some right wing blog(ie I wouldn't put to much stock into anything coming out of "the Blaze" or breitbart.com)?

Well, they are impressing me about as much as ACORN does these days.....

You know Acorn doesn't exist anymore(circa 2010) and is nothing more then a Republican boogieman

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...corn-which-doesnt-exist-stole-election/59632/

Yes, Half of Republicans Think ACORN, Which Doesn't Exist, Stole the Election

The funniest poll of the afternoon comes from the folks over at Public Policy Polling, who have results that are new and legitimate results (if a bit heavy on the forced fantasy questions) finding that 49 percent of Republicans and six percent of Democrats believe ACORN stole the 2012 election for Barack Obama — despite the pesky fact that ACORN folded in 2010. How ... wait ... huh?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/05/1191745/-GOP-still-defunding-ACORN

ACORN may no longer exist, but that isn't stopping Republicans from trying to defund it all over again. From the House Appropriations Committe's newly introduced legislation to fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2013:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries or successors.​

 

[terry78]

http://news.yahoo.com/5-old-boy-shoots-2-old-sister-ky-161229579.html

I didn't even know they made these.