Let's Talk Second Amendment

[Anovah]

Why?

What seems the most reasonable interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the introductory phrase is just that, and introduction stressing the importance of the right. Not just to the individuals but to the country itself.

I feel like there's been a lot of parsing of the "prefatory clause" and the "operative clause". I'd agree that the operative clause is the right that is given. The prefatory clause however does announce the purpose of the operative clause and is not irrelevant. In this case the purpose is ensuring a well regulated militia which tells me the government very much has a place in the discipline of said militia.

Oh I guess the 'well regulated' part is still important.

Guys who can shot are the building blocks, but if the effort to organize them is missing they remain just potential building blocks. It is a caution that a rabble that can shoot is just that. So the second amendment just insures the building blocks will be there.

George Washington and other founding fathers seem to have found the lack of discipline to be abhorrent enough to have codified regulation and discipline in the constitution and the articles of confederation.

"but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." - Articles of Confederation

"If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter." – George Washington, September 1776

As an aside, I'm happy to be discussing this with someone I've found to be rather level headed

 

[keith99]

I feel like there's been a lot of parsing of the "prefatory clause" and the "operative clause". I'd agree that the operative clause is the right that is given. The prefatory clause however does announce the purpose of the operative clause and is not irrelevant. In this case the purpose is ensuring a well regulated militia which tells me the government very much has a place in the discipline of said militia.



George Washington and other founding fathers seem to have found the lack of discipline to be abhorrent enough to have codified regulation and discipline in the constitution and the articles of confederation.

"but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." - Articles of Confederation

"If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter." – George Washington, September 1776

As an aside, I'm happy to be discussing this with someone I've found to be rather level headed

Thank you.

That cite from the Articles of Confederation brought one thing into focus for me.

Note that on first glance the 2nd amendment is stronger than the First.

'Shall not be infringed' seems stronger than 'Congress shall make no Law'.

But I am now thinking it is not stronger so much as broader. I'm now thinking the intent was to avoid state and local laws that would restrict gun ownership under the guise of being safe. The costs of gun ownership are borne locally. The benefits are to the country as a whole.

I see that the assault weapons issue has come up in the thread. One thing I find remarkable is how seldom anyone brings up the militia issue when it comes to assault weapons. If we look to the first phrase of the amendment it becomes clear that the assault weapons was exactly what it meant to protect. Yet that is what some seek to ban entirely.

Just mentioning that because I can argue that handguns are not what it seeks to protect. The benefit to society is lots of guys who can shoot rifles well that could quickly be called up. A pistol is pretty useless in combat.

 

[Veritas]

The phrase "well regulated" has got to mean something doesn't it?

Something entirely different to liberals today than what it meant at the time it was written.

The peoples right to bear arms is in regards to a well regulated militia? Sounds right to me.

WE are the militia.

"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..."

~George Mason

And if something is not in proper working order, how would the government go about restoring that order (i.e. regulate)?

)

Assuming the government itself is "in proper (Constitutional) working order". The problem the Founder's forsaw was that it was the government that would get out-of-hand and require another Revolution.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

~Thomas Jefferson

 

[RDKirk]

I feel like there's been a lot of parsing of the "prefatory clause" and the "operative clause". I'd agree that the operative clause is the right that is given. The prefatory clause however does announce the purpose of the operative clause and is not irrelevant. In this case the purpose is ensuring a well regulated militia which tells me the government very much has a place in the discipline of said militia.



George Washington and other founding fathers seem to have found the lack of discipline to be abhorrent enough to have codified regulation and discipline in the constitution and the articles of confederation.

"but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." - Articles of Confederation

"If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter." – George Washington, September 1776

As an aside, I'm happy to be discussing this with someone I've found to be rather level headed

The real point there is that they did not intend to have a standing federal army, thus regulated state militias that could be called up as necessary were required.

(A lot of people don't realize that even today, Congress must vote every year on whether to continue the Army and Air Force.)

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

1. Is a mosin nagant (looks like a 91/30).

It's an 1891.

2. This can be deceptive. It's either a run of the mill 5.56 ar 15 or something made to look like one. Can't tell from the pic but it could very well be converted to shoot .22. Just gonna guess that it.s run of the mill ar.

It's a civilian AR-15.

3. Looks like maybe an SKS but I'm not super familiar with semi auto rifles.

Ljungman AG-42.

One and three are actual military weapons. The AR-15 isn't a military weapon. I posted that picture as an experiment to see if Ringo thought that military grade hardware included actual military weapons.

The answer (assuming the ar isn't in fact a nodded .22) is all of them, but for different reasons. It is incredibly disingenuous to imply that just because 5.56 is a smaller round that it is somehow less military hardware than the 7.62 of the mosin that it is more deserving of the label 'military'. After all the mosin is no longer used on the battlefield except by the incredibly destitute. There's a reason why the US uses 5.56 and it has absolutely nothing to do with reduced lethality.

Interestingly enough, insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are still using Mosins, but they're probably under the incredibly destitute side of things. Of course Mosins don't take much in the way of maintenance. The Canadian Rangers are still using Rifle No. 4.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I was not referencing any Supreme Court case. It was a hypothetical.

But since you posted that link, let me say that contrary to what the author of that article says, there are limitations on the First Amendment. A civilized society, in order to remain civilized, sets certain 'ground rules' to govern how and in what situations using one's free speech is appropriate.

In the Schenk case, the government was limiting people's free speech, and locking them up for it. The "fire in a crowded theater" meme comes from an egregious misquote of some of the legal reasoning in that case. The actual quote is to "falsely shout fire in a crowded theater."

If that weren't so, I would have the ability to go on national television and make disparaging comments about your mother (not that I would; it's an example). My rights end where yours begin. Why should the Second Amendment be any different?

You do have to right to go on national television and do that, as far as I'm aware. Typically, though, limitations of that sort of nature are a result of the broadcaster's actions and not the government actions.

You could hold up a sign on a street corner making derogatory remarks about my mother. If I were to round up a group of my friends and beat you down, while, within the limits of propriety, it is actually a federal felony.

Such laws don't control the dissemination of firearms to those who shouldn't have them, however, which is why we should better regulate guns.

You mean people who commit crimes?

There's a better predictor for one's inclination to murder than possession of firearms. It's one's history of violent crime. There's loads of data that show most murderers have a violent criminal history.

You are proposing legislation and policies that affect the hundreds of millions of law-abiding gun owners in for a policy interest of dubious utility.

No more so than libel and slander laws are an infringement on First Amendment rights.

There's always the truth as a defense. Typically, though, libel and slander are civil matters, and the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to prove the damage done.

The answer is that I don't know. But again: if the laws truly don't make sense, that's a good reason to involve gun owners who are familiar with firearms and who can give expert advice.
Ringo

Or the stupid politicians would get easy loopholes written into their laws by civic minded individuals.

 

[Ringo84]

I had a conversation like this with a friend of mine of Facebook. He's no less passionate about the right to bear arms than you, but I think we were able to come to an understanding.

This is how I explained it to him: with great power comes great responsibility. The Constitution gives us great power - the freedom to say nearly anything we like, the freedom to purchase and brandish arms, the freedom to express our ideas in print, etc. However, with that great power comes great responsibility - the necessity to set certain 'ground rules' for the ways in which we use our freedoms. The Constitution is not a free pass to do whatever we like; our freedom must be tempered by being careful not to infringe on the rights of others.

Or, to relate it back to the discussion about free speech: the tongue is a powerful weapon in itself, which means that we should be careful how it is used. That's why we limit ourselves with laws against libel or the like - not to restrict freedom, but to protect the freedom of others.

That's really the main point I've been trying to make. I like to think that I'm one of the very few moderates on this issue.
Ringo

 

[abdAlSalam]

One and three are actual military weapons. The AR-15 isn't a military weapon. I posted that picture as an experiment to see if Ringo thought that military grade hardware included actual military weapons.

Again, this is being disingenuous. An AR 15 and an M16 are only meaningfully distinguished by selective fire (ARs don't have it, m16s do). The rest, as it has been said, is "cosmetic". They both shoot 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington. So by any reasonable definition, if a Mosin Nagant is a weapon of war, so is an AR 15.

Interestingly enough, insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are still using Mosins, but they're probably under the incredibly destitute side of things.

You think?

Of course Mosins don't take much in the way of maintenance. The Canadian Rangers are still using Rifle No. 4.

Canadian Rangers are more or less irregulars; glorified police. Not sure why you would bring them up as part of a discussion on military hardware?

 

[RDKirk]

Thank you.

That cite from the Articles of Confederation brought one thing into focus for me.

Note that on first glance the 2nd amendment is stronger than the First.

'Shall not be infringed' seems stronger than 'Congress shall make no Law'.

But I am now thinking it is not stronger so much as broader. I'm now thinking the intent was to avoid state and local laws that would restrict gun ownership under the guise of being safe. The costs of gun ownership are borne locally. The benefits are to the country as a whole.

I don't think so. The Constitution was not considered actionable upon the state governments until after the Civil War.

 

[RDKirk]

Again, this is being disingenuous. An AR 15 and an M16 are only meaningfully distinguished by selective fire (ARs don't have it, m16s do). The rest, as it has been said, is "cosmetic". They both shoot 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington. So by any reasonable definition, if a Mosin Nagant is a weapon of war, so is an AR 15.

Wait, wait! You forgot that the M16 has a bayonet mount!

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Again, this is being disingenuous. An AR 15 and an M16 are only meaningfully distinguished by selective fire (ARs don't have it, m16s do). The rest, as it has been said, is "cosmetic". They both shoot 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington. So by any reasonable definition, if a Mosin Nagant is a weapon of war, so is an AR 15.

I was more interested in seeing if Ringo's definition of "military grade hardware" included actual military weapons or if he defined "military grade hardware" based on cosmetic features. Of course, a civilian AR-15 is not limited to the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO round. A civilian AR-15 can be almost anything from a black powder musket to a .50 BMG rifle, with the swapping of a few pins. A military rifle of the Military's M-16 family is limited by the military to 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington.

You think?

Well they work.

Canadian Rangers are more or less irregulars; glorified police. Not sure why you would bring them up as part of a discussion on military hardware?

The Canadian Rangers are a sub-component of the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve. They provide patrols and detachments for national-security and public-safety missions in sparsely settled northern, coastal and isolated areas of Canada.

Because the Canadian Forces think they're a part of the military.

I'd basically describe them as a type of militia group.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I had a conversation like this with a friend of mine of Facebook. He's no less passionate about the right to bear arms than you, but I think we were able to come to an understanding.

I love a good argument, though.

This is how I explained it to him: with great power comes great responsibility. The Constitution gives us great power - the freedom to say nearly anything we like, the freedom to purchase and brandish arms, the freedom to express our ideas in print, etc. However, with that great power comes great responsibility - the necessity to set certain 'ground rules' for the ways in which we use our freedoms. The Constitution is not a free pass to do whatever we like; our freedom must be tempered by being careful not to infringe on the rights of others.

If one believes in natural rights theory, the Constitution does not give us any rights. It merely recognizes preexisting rights.

Pretty much the only things that I think should be outright and completely banned are weapons that involve fissile materials or the distribution of radioactive materials and chemical and biological weapons.

The US Constitution recognizes the rights of individuals to have artillery and warships.

Or, to relate it back to the discussion about free speech: the tongue is a powerful weapon in itself, which means that we should be careful how it is used. That's why we limit ourselves with laws against libel or the like - not to restrict freedom, but to protect the freedom of others.

Which is why you impose laws that govern the ways that people conduct themselves with weapons, not laws that govern or limit the features of weapons.

I don't care if someone goes out and buys a tank. I don't care if someone goes out and buys shells for a tank.

If someone drives a tank along the street in front of my house and tears up the pavement, that person should have his tank taken away, and be fined for the repairs to the road.

For her actions in this picture, quite frankly, I think Dianne Feinstein should be jailed on charges of hypocrisy. If someone shot someone holding a semi-automatic rifle pointed at a group of people in the condition she has it, and I'm on a jury, I'm not going to vote to convict the shooter of murder.

If you take the freedom of speech issue, I believe that there was an instance, where Fox news had a court case that asserted that they have the right to distort the news. In a libel case, the individual libeled has to prove that he sustained damage at in a libel case, and it's a civil tort. If the state wants to restrict someone's right to firearms, they should have to prove that he's a danger with them. If someone is negligent (and not criminal) in with a firearm [e.g. points it at someone in a negligent then the police come, and take it away. Then he should have to take a gun safety class. If he keeps being stupid, keep taking his toys away. Eventually, he'll either learn, or run out of toys.

Of course, that gets into my weird ideas about criminal justice, too. If someone steals someone's stuff, that person should be sentenced to work for the person at minimum wage, until the value of the stuff has been recompensed to the victim. The state's goal should be to facilitate that.

That's really the main point I've been trying to make. I like to think that I'm one of the very few moderates on this issue.
Ringo

Perhaps. Or perhaps I'm an extremist. But remember, extremism, in the defense of liberty is no vice.

 

[tulc]

It's an 1891.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V540Xe4ow9Y

It's a civilian AR-15.

ok

Ljungman AG-42.

Ljungman AG-42 « Forgotten Weapons
the slogan on that last site is "Warning-You'll lose a lot of time here -Borepatch" and he's right!
tulc(is just sayn')

 

[theophilus777]

Thank you.

That cite from the Articles of Confederation brought one thing into focus for me.

Note that on first glance the 2nd amendment is stronger than the First.

'Shall not be infringed' seems stronger than 'Congress shall make no Law'.

But I am now thinking it is not stronger so much as broader. I'm now thinking the intent was to avoid state and local laws that would restrict gun ownership under the guise of being safe.

EXACTLY!! Never have I encountered anyone else express that, but that's what it says. Why do our Courts want to hide this? [Whether State, local, or Federal I'm not sure, but that's still the just. And why is this thread suddenly widescreen?]

I see that the assault weapons issue has come up in the thread. One thing I find remarkable is how seldom anyone brings up the militia issue when it comes to assault weapons. If we look to the first phrase of the amendment it becomes clear that the assault weapons was exactly what it meant to protect. Yet that is what some seek to ban entirely.

Again, on point. further, fully automatic weapons were effectively banned how long ago? but they can claim they're not really banned. The answer, just like with ACA, is to turn everything into a tax. And yet what did the framers say about begin taxed in everything? That when that happens, everything they sought to create was already destroyed.

Just mentioning that because I can argue that handguns are not what it seeks to protect. The benefit to society is lots of guys who can shoot rifles well that could quickly be called up. A pistol is pretty useless in combat.

Useless? How bout last line of defense? Only relied upon at the hand to hand level, instead of a shovel, knife, or bayonet? (I might find a bayonet more functional)

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Ljungman AG-42 « Forgotten Weapons
the slogan on that last site is "Warning-You'll lose a lot of time here -Borepatch" and he's right!
tulc(is just sayn')

I have a couple of these and one of these, too

I'm a licensed C&R collector, and I love obscure rifles.

 

[Ringo84]

I love a good argument, though.

Well...so do I. But if two people pretty much agree, what's the point in having one?

If one believes in natural rights theory, the Constitution does not give us any rights. It merely recognizes preexisting rights.

Pretty much the only things that I think should be outright and completely banned are weapons that involve fissile materials or the distribution of radioactive materials and chemical and biological weapons.

The US Constitution recognizes the rights of individuals to have artillery and warships.

This is where you and I definitely part company, as I don't have a problem with handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, or even semiautomatics.

But artillery? Rocket launchers? I just don't see much of a need for a private citizen to own heavy weaponry of that type. We have a professional military that does a pretty good job of protecting us; we don't need to be armed to the teeth (though, yes, I know you'll probably say, "But I want to be armed to the teeth")

Which is why you impose laws that govern the ways that people conduct themselves with weapons, not laws that govern or limit the features of weapons.

I don't care if someone goes out and buys a tank. I don't care if someone goes out and buys shells for a tank.

If someone drives a tank along the street in front of my house and tears up the pavement, that person should have his tank taken away, and be fined for the repairs to the road.

I don't disagree. However, I don't think a private citizen should have access to a tank. Don't make tanks available, and you take away the threat of people being hurt and killed or the pavement in front of your house being destroyed.

If you take the freedom of speech issue, I believe that there was an instance, where Fox news had a court case that asserted that they have the right to distort the news. In a libel case, the individual libeled has to prove that he sustained damage at in a libel case, and it's a civil tort. If the state wants to restrict someone's right to firearms, they should have to prove that he's a danger with them. If someone is negligent (and not criminal) in with a firearm [e.g. points it at someone in a negligent then the police come, and take it away. Then he should have to take a gun safety class. If he keeps being stupid, keep taking his toys away. Eventually, he'll either learn, or run out of toys.

I'm not finding much here with which I can disagree, though I would say that some people just shouldn't have guns at all. If you're so mentally ill that you can't distinguish reality from delusion, you shouldn't be anywhere near a weapon.

Perhaps. Or perhaps I'm an extremist.

No....I don't think you're an extremist. I think you are to my right on Second Amendment issues, but nothing you've said has struck me as extreme.

extremism, in the defense of liberty is no vice.

I definitely disagree with this, though. Extremism in the defense of anything is a vice.
Ringo

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Well...so do I. But if two people pretty much agree, what's the point in having one?

Because it's fun!

This is where you and I definitely part company, as I don't have a problem with handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, or even semiautomatics.

Even some of the regulations on those are absurd. I'd love to get rid of the NFA for SBRs, shotguns, suppressors, and some of the stupider import bans.

But artillery? Rocket launchers? I just don't see much of a need for a private citizen to own heavy weaponry of that type. We have a professional military that does a pretty good job of protecting us; we don't need to be armed to the teeth (though, yes, I know you'll probably say, "But I want to be armed to the teeth")

Private citizens can own artillery.
Here's another piece of artillery.
You'd be amazed at the number of things you can find on the internet.
And more

Private citizens are already allowed to own weapons of that type. The ATF just imposes a tax, and they're kind of spendy.

I don't disagree. However, I don't think a private citizen should have access to a tank. Don't make tanks available, and you take away the threat of people being hurt and killed or the pavement in front of your house being destroyed.

I was able to find at least one reference to a privately owned Hellcat [tank destroyer] in Oregon.
There's also this.

I'm not finding much here with which I can disagree, though I would say that some people just shouldn't have guns at all. If you're so mentally ill that you can't distinguish reality from delusion, you shouldn't be anywhere near a weapon.

If you're so mentally ill that you can't tell fantasy and reality, you shouldn't be running around in public.

No....I don't think you're an extremist. I think you are to my right on Second Amendment issues, but nothing you've said has struck me as extreme.

What about 3rd amendment issues?

I definitely disagree with this, though. Extremism in the defense of anything is a vice.
Ringo

It depends on what it is.