Florida High School Massacre

[Kulindahr]

There are also those who claim that the 2nd Amendment was written to help slave holders control slave uprisings and to help preserve slavery (similarly to the 3/5 counting of slave vs. free for census purposes):

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

That was how the Southern states looked at it, yes, though Jefferson disapproved.

And that led to the original birth of the view that it protects a state militia: faced with a huge population of freed slaves, the southern states limited militia membership to whites in order to disarm the freedmen. The favorite interpretation of the left was born of racism.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Here's he history of the amendment. (Sorry. Nothing about slavery.)

It was actually written to allow individual states to protect themselves from government oppression. Very interesting read:

http://www.history.com/topics/2nd-amendment

They're taking one function of the Second Amendment and using it to erase the plain meaning of the words: when "the people" are named in the Constitution, it refers to all the individuals. That's what every Supreme Court mention of the Second up until the 1940s follows.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think the underlying concept to what Kulindahr posted is more like, “[Kids’ emotions] have been pumped up by anti-gun teachers and politicians.” He is denigrating “the kids” by suggesting that they are incapable of formulating their own group consensus and activism. But I read his bigger point as an intention to demean “anti-gun teachers and politicians.”

Since they're the ones operating on emotion right now, yes.

Citizens voting according to emotion is what destroyed Athens in the Second Peloponnesian War.

And under the kind of emotion those kids have been subjected to, no, they aren't capable "of forming their own group consensus and activism".

 

[Kulindahr]

Does that same concept of future scarcity bolster the current sale of new AR-15s? (ROI)

In part, yes.

The interesting thing is that the AR-15 sold very poorly until a few Democrats decided it was evil. Clinton's gun ban made the gun what it is now.

If back then they'd instead tried to apply what the Constitution says about the matter, and declare it a particular militia weapon, and decreed that all National Guard armories were now militia arsenals where such guns should be kept, they might have gotten away with it.

This whole mess exists because Congress hasn't taken its responsibility to organize and discipline (and arm) the militia seriously for far more than a century.

 

[Kulindahr]

It can function as a single shot rifle.

And since there's a law that says commonly used firearms are protected, and Scalia mentioned that in Heller, its popularity makes it protected.

I still say the way out of this is to establish militia armories and designate rifles like the AR-15 as being particularly appropriate to the militia and thus require them to be stored there -- along with training the way they do in Switzerland, so kids grow up knowing how to deal with them safely, and respect them, and hopefully then not misuse them.

 

[opinterph]

And under the kind of emotion those kids have been subjected to, no, they aren't capable "of forming their own group consensus and activism".

Welcome to the world of social media.

 

[Kulindahr]

Welcome to the world of social media.

Social media: promoting mass hysteria since MySpace.

 

[gsdx]

They're taking one function of the Second Amendment and using it to erase the plain meaning of the words

Which is exactly what you do all the time. You concentrate on a few words and ignore the rest without ever asking the question 'why?'

 

[Kulindahr]

Which is exactly what you do all the time. You concentrate on a few words and ignore the rest without ever asking the question 'why?'

Another lie -- I deal with the whole thing. Since you obviously don't remember, I'll do it again:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state": this is known as a purpose clause; it gives one reason for the main clause.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms": this is the subject of the statement.

"shall not be infringed": this is the verb portion.

The subject and the verb portions together constitute the main clause. A purpose clause does not limit a main clause, but its contents can often help explain the meaning of a main clause, since that it what purposes do.

In the most obvious meaning of the purpose of the security of a free state, a well-regulated militia means one capable of resisting invasion. This means the militia must have the latest in military technology. "Well-regulated" affirms this, since lacking sufficient weaponry renders the militia less than effective. This is also affirmed in the words "bear arms", which meant to carry the common arms of the ordinary soldier.

Given the relationship between purpose clause and main clause, "militia" in the purpose clause is equivalent to "the people" in the main clause. Since "the people" when used in the Constitution means the individuals who make up the referenced "free state", the right belongs to all individuals in the said free state.

So from just an analysis of the grammar and terms, the Second Amendment is saying that because a free country needs a populace sufficiently armed and trained to repel am invader, nothing at all can be allowed to get in the way of the individual citizens supplying themselves with arms appropriate to do just that.

 

[gsdx]

^ I don't ever recall you using the word Militia in relation to the right to bear arms. I didn't even read your response except for you calling me a liar. I'm getting rather annoyed with that.

 

[opinterph]

And since there's a law that says commonly used firearms are protected, and Scalia mentioned that in Heller, [the AR-15’s] popularity makes it protected.

To be clear, what you posted above is more like “hopeful speculation” than fact.

As the NRA told the Supreme Court in 2015 as it unsuccessfully sought review of one of the four appeals court rulings: “Firearms that are commonly chosen by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes cannot be banned. While some contours of the Second Amendment have been left to future evaluation,” it said in an amicus brief, “at least this much is clear from recent decisions by this Court.”

But that much has not been “clear” to the appeals courts that have reviewed the issue.

Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons? Four courts have said no. (Washington Post; February 22, 2018)

 

[KaraBulut]

So, I was right?

Well, before the Heller decision, there was a lot of argument over that word "militia".

After Heller, there exists the right to ownership of a gun- the government can't prevent you from having a gun but the government still has the right to regulate guns. In the words of Scalia: no right is absolute.

Don't believe anyone who tells you that there's a right of ownership, concealed carry or open carry. If there were, the gun lobby wouldn't be pouring millions into buying politicians and writing legislation for them.

There are also those who claim that the 2nd Amendment was written to help slave holders control slave uprisings and to help preserve slavery (similarly to the 3/5 counting of slave vs. free for census purposes)

I chuckle when I hear this argument. The guns weren't necessarily for the slaves that you are thinking of.

If you read some of the early writings about the Americas, there were lots of stories about the white trash and ne'er-do-wells that inhabited the Americas.

Britain had passed a lot of really onerous laws. A lot of people were sentenced to severe punishment for relatively innocuous infractions. One way out was to sign an indenture contract and work as a indentured servant in the Americas. Orphans were kidnapped off the streets and sold into indentures.

The ability to organize into militias was deemed necessary to protect the Colonies from the French, the British and other countries that were threatening the early US.

The Americas were a rough place- lots of Indians, wild animals and petty criminals. It's no wonder they wanted to keep a gun. However, no one dreamed of the firepower that we have in the 21st century.

 

[opinterph]

This whole mess exists because Congress hasn't taken its responsibility to organize and discipline (and arm) the militia seriously for far more than a century.

If I have a right to own a personal weapon that is separate and distinct from “the militia,” what difference does it make how Congress goes about the task of maintaining the militia?

 

[cityboy-stl]

Given the relationship between purpose clause and main clause, "militia" in the purpose clause is equivalent to "the people" in the main clause. Since "the people" when used in the Constitution means the individuals who make up the referenced "free state", the right belongs to all individuals in the said free state.

So if militia = "the people" then the purpose clause could be stated 'A well-regulated people...'. So those people of the militia should themselves be well-regulated as well as the arms they carry. Because, as you've said, well-regulated affirms sufficient weaponry for the common arms of the ordinary soldier. Therefore the people of the militia along with the arms they carry, or don't carry, must be well-regulated. Proper weapons should be owned by the proper people in the proper setting for a well-regulated use. That means not allowing ordinary non-soldier folks who are not part of an organized, well-regulated militia to not own certain weapons, such as military assault weapons, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is not a free-for-all.

I suppose the National Guard would be the closest thing to a militia these days. I have no problem with those of the National Guard having AR-15s (or whatever). Certain weapons have a specific use and they should be limited to that use by the people who are trained and authorized to do so. And this is does not mean anybody who just wants one.

 

[opinterph]

The interesting thing is that the AR-15 sold very poorly until …

The early M16 was plagued by misfortune during its service in the field.

In the late 1960s, ArmaLite gave up its patent, and manufacturers transitioned the M16 from military armories to the sporting-goods store as the AR-15, but its civilian debut was a dud, mostly because of its association with Vietnam.

How the AR-15 Became One of the Most Popular Guns in America (US News; November 2017)

 

[Kulindahr]

So if militia = "the people" then the purpose clause could be stated 'A well-regulated people...'. So those people of the militia should themselves be well-regulated as well as the arms they carry. Because, as you've said, well-regulated affirms sufficient weaponry for the common arms of the ordinary soldier. Therefore the people of the militia along with the arms they carry, or don't carry, must be well-regulated. Proper weapons should be owned by the proper people in the proper setting for a well-regulated use. That means not allowing ordinary non-soldier folks who are not part of an organized, well-regulated militia to not own certain weapons, such as military assault weapons, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is not a free-for-all.

I suppose the National Guard would be the closest thing to a militia these days. I have no problem with those of the National Guard having AR-15s (or whatever). Certain weapons have a specific use and they should be limited to that use by the people who are trained and authorized to do so. And this is does not mean anybody who just wants one.

Creative, but no: the point is that the people have to be armed in order to be a well-regulated militia.

As for limiting ownership, that's exactly what the amendment is saying can't be done. But what the militia concept here does is, IMO, make it so Congress could designate certain weapons as appropriate for the military function of the militia and thus require them to be stored at facilities for that specific purpose. If someone wanted to use his for hunting, he could check it out, but it wouldn't be lying around the house for someone else to take and misuse.

BTW, the authority comes from the people; the government only gets arms because the people authorized it. The government doesn't get to change the rules and pretend it gets to authorize anything.

 

[KaraBulut]

If I have a right to own a personal weapon that is separate and distinct from “the militia,” what difference does it make how Congress goes about the task of maintaining the militia?

There's a bit of interesting history about the Second Amendment- the version passed by Congress doesn't match the version that was ratified. One of the variances was the term "militia" versus "Militia".

Militias are creatures of the individual States and local jurisdictions. When Washington was in command during the Revolution, one of his big complaints was that his troops that came from the State were poorly trained and poorly organized. He described their uniforms as little more than "rags". Sanitation and disease were rampant. One of the reasons that von Steuben was brought in was to try to make a military out of disorganized, poorly trained group of militias.

When the Constitution was passed, the Federal Government was given the ability to nationalize the State Militias when needed. This was formalized in Militia Acts. The big problem during this time was that the Federal Government had no money, so they were very dependent upon the States to police themselves. The public wasn't in favor of a national, permanent Army (it's fair to say that the public didn't want to pay for a permanent Army with taxes, either). If you read the documents from this period, you'll also see that most of these Militias didn't have guns, so if the soldiers didn't bring their gun with them, they usually went without a weapon.

So, if we want to be "Originalists", then we have to also view the DIY element of Militias in the early United States. Now that we have a professional, standing and permanent national military, we also have to question this idea that we're all supposed to be armed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical Federal government. The history really doesn't pan out on this reasoning.

Fun Fact: rumors surrounded von Steuben and his dalliances with men. He could well have been America's first gay man in the Military.

 

[Kulindahr]

The early M16 was plagued by misfortune during its service in the field.

​

Right -- as I said, Bill Clinton made it popular: people wanted one because he said they couldn't have one. I remember that at gun shows, where anyone with an AR became a center of attention.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a bit of interesting history about the Second Amendment- the version passed by Congress doesn't match the version that was ratified. One of the variances was the term "militia" versus "Militia".

Another was the commas; the one passed by Congress lacked two of the ones we see.

Militias are creatures of the individual States and local jurisdictions. When Washington was in command during the Revolution, one of his big complaints was that his troops that came from the State were poorly trained and poorly organized. He described their uniforms as little more than "rags". Sanitation and disease were rampant. One of the reasons that von Steuben was brought in was to try to make a military out of disorganized, poorly trained group of militias.

When the Constitution was passed, the Federal Government was given the ability to nationalize the State Militias when needed. This was formalized in Militia Acts. The big problem during this time was that the Federal Government had no money, so they were very dependent upon the States to police themselves. The public wasn't in favor of a national, permanent Army (it's fair to say that the public didn't want to pay for a permanent Army with taxes, either). If you read the documents from this period, you'll also see that most of these Militias didn't have guns, so if the soldiers didn't bring their gun with them, they usually went without a weapon.

So, if we want to be "Originalists", then we have to also view the DIY element of Militias in the early United States. Now that we have a professional, standing and permanent national military, we also have to question this idea that we're all supposed to be armed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical Federal government. The history really doesn't pan out on this reasoning.

Fun Fact: rumors surrounded von Steuben and his dalliances with men. He could well have been America's first gay man in the Military.

"Now that we have a professional, standing and permanent national military", the Framers would say "we're all supposed to be armed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical Federal government" is even more important.

As for the "do it yourself" aspect, that's why Congress was given the authority to arm the militia.

And the widespread misuse we see of arms is due to Congress neglecting the other two powers it was given: to organize and discipline.

I would think that proposing Congress do that very thing would be a great move for those who hate the NRA, because they would be hard put to find any way to criticize Congress actually making use of what is explicitly there, and under that heading AR-15s could be gotten "off the streets" without banning them (and their owners could be required to do semi-annual training).

 

[cityboy-stl]

I suppose the National Guard would be the closest thing to a militia these days. I have no problem with those of the National Guard having AR-15s (or whatever). Certain weapons have a specific use and they should be limited to that use by the people who are trained and authorized to do so. And this is does not mean anybody who just wants one.

Creative, but no: the point is that the people have to be armed in order to be a well-regulated militia.

As for limiting ownership, that's exactly what the amendment is saying can't be done. But what the militia concept here does is, IMO, make it so Congress could designate certain weapons as appropriate for the military function of the militia and thus require them to be stored at facilities for that specific purpose. If someone wanted to use his for hunting, he could check it out, but it wouldn't be lying around the house for someone else to take and misuse.

BTW, the authority comes from the people; the government only gets arms because the people authorized it. The government doesn't get to change the rules and pretend it gets to authorize anything.

So ummm....isn't that what I said; "Designate certain weapons for a military purpose...", which would prevent ownership by the general population?

What part of the second amendment allows for automatic machine guns to be banned but does allow semi-automatic military assault weapons to be owned by anyone who just wants one?