Nancy Pelosi warns GOP that a Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency

[Yekcidmij]

And the government can ban certain types of weapons without violating the 2nd Amendment.

So what about everything but muskets?

 

[StrivingFollower]

So what about everything but muskets?

Jefferson would be proud to see these Americans sharpen up at their musket skills.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

So what about everything but muskets?

While we are at it, maybe we could enforce the “well regulated militia” clause.

 

[Logic Over Emotionalism]

No one is suggesting banning everything except muskets and swords. Other weapons have been banned over the years, even in colonial times municipalities sometimes banned the local militia from having cannon. Even handguns were banned in many places. Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History | Smithsonian I'm sorry you think taht the current ban on most automatic weapons violates the 2nd Amendment. You are wrong on that point, it has been upheld.

All sorts of firearms have been subject of being taken from American citizens, when does it stop till it does infringe on your rights to bear arms? The 2A reads that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed", the word infringe means to act so as to limit or undermine (something). So to limit the access to firearms is a infringement on our rights under the 2A. The reason for the 2A is "necessary to the security of a free State" as it reads. The right to bear arms is to be able to use deadly force in time of conflict and to be responsible with our rights under the 2A. All sorts of laws that were very wrong in the past were upheld for a long time as well, the fact it was upheld or not does not justify anything.

But I do agree with the ban of cannons just as I agree that people should not have tanks or missiles.

 

[Logic Over Emotionalism]

While we are at it, maybe we could enforce the “well regulated militia” clause.

Probably because The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.... Source below:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason

 

[Archivist]

If the SCOTUS starts leaning more to the right after more appointments are made in the future, those same bans that were upheld in the past could very well be overturned. It all depends on who is making the decisions.

Don’t hold your breath.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Cities With the Most Gun Violence

Here's a list of the cities with the most gun violence per capita, you might want to look up the gun laws in those cities.
For example Memphis, TN is the second on the list and they gun laws aren't very restrictive.
Tennessee Gun Control Laws - FindLaw

Seen the list before.

 

[Archivist]

All sorts of firearms have been subject of being taken from American citizens, when does it stop till it does infringe on your rights to bear arms? The 2A reads that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed", the word infringe means to act so as to limit or undermine (something). So to limit the access to firearms is a infringement on our rights under the 2A. The reason for the 2A is "necessary to the security of a free State" as it reads. The right to bear arms is to be able to use deadly force in time of conflict and to be responsible with our rights under the 2A. All sorts of laws that were very wrong in the past were upheld for a long time as well, the fact it was upheld or not does not justify anything.

But I do agree with the ban of cannons just as I agree that people should not have tanks or missiles.

But the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say guns, it says arms. If your argument is correct th n arms should include cannon. However it doesn’t.

 

[Archivist]

Probably because The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.... Source below:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason

And George Mason didn’t sign the Constitution, did he?

 

[Archivist]

double post

 

[Logic Over Emotionalism]

But the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say guns, it says arms. If your argument is correct th n arms should include cannon. However it doesn’t.

Yes, private citizens were allowed to own cannons, and many did. It was very common for private merchant ships (for example) to be equipped with cannons and even at a time of war. They were called "armed merchantmen" - so yes cannons were given to the people.

Privateers Mattered | U.S. Naval Institute

 

[Logic Over Emotionalism]

And George Mason didn’t sign the Constitution, did he?

I never said he did. But his voice is still important as he is apart of our history. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason principally authored, served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights, of which he has been deemed the father. Seems he is important enough right?

 

[Go Braves]

Right after Nancy Pelosi said what she did there was yet another gun massacre.

Donald said he didn't need to declare an emergency, but was going to anyhow. Then right after talking about the emergency he flew off to his golf course at taxpayer expenses where illegal documents work. He got himself a nice omelette at the omelette bar.

 

[jkjk]

Most of those don't sound as if there is any imminent threat to the US as reason to implement a national emergency. It may be that the bar is pretty low in instituting such an order. It would be interesting to see the justification for the order.

This is what international relations calls "Securitization."

According to securitisation theory, political issues are constituted as extreme security issues to be dealt with urgently when they have been labelled as ‘dangerous’, ‘menacing’, ‘threatening’, ‘alarming’ and so on by a ‘securitising actor’ who has the social and institutional power to move the issue ‘beyond politics’. So, security issues are not simply ‘out there’ but rather must be articulated as problems by securitising actors. Calling immigration a ‘threat to national security’, for instance, shifts immigration from a low priority political concern to a high priority issue that requires action, such as securing borders. Securitisation theory challenges traditional approaches to security in IR and asserts that issues are not essentially threatening in themselves; rather, it is by referring to them as ‘security’ issues that they become security problems.

Securitisation Theory: An Introduction

 

[jkjk]

All sorts of firearms have been subject of being taken from American citizens, when does it stop till it does infringe on your rights to bear arms? The 2A reads that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed", the word infringe means to act so as to limit or undermine (something). So to limit the access to firearms is a infringement on our rights under the 2A. The reason for the 2A is "necessary to the security of a free State" as it reads. The right to bear arms is to be able to use deadly force in time of conflict and to be responsible with our rights under the 2A. All sorts of laws that were very wrong in the past were upheld for a long time as well, the fact it was upheld or not does not justify anything.

But I do agree with the ban of cannons just as I agree that people should not have tanks or missiles.

What's wrong with cannon and tanks? There's absolutely nothing like pulling a lanyard for the first time, that's for sure!

As long as people drive their tanks and shoot their cannons on private property, in accordance with appropriate surface danger zones, then I am all for it. Anyways, with the amount of fuel and maintenance a tank requires, you'd have to be rich to keep one operational, much less maintain your proficiency. And if you think ammo prices are bad for small arms, wait til you try feeding a 120mm cannon or 105mm howitzer.

 

[High Fidelity]

Trying to protect and secure our border is different then trying to take away our rights as Americans.

Calling it an emergency then going to play golf for the weekend. Bit of a disconnect there, wouldn't you say?

 

[Archivist]

Yes, private citizens were allowed to own cannons, and many did. It was very common for private merchant ships (for example) to be equipped with cannons and even at a time of war. They were called "armed merchantmen" - so yes cannons were given to the people.

Privateers Mattered | U.S. Naval Institute

If you have read the thread you know that I was referencing municipalities banning their local militia from having cannon. I didn’t reference privateers. A privateer received a letter of marque from the government, a license that gave a right to engage in acts that otherwise would have been considered piracy.

 

[Archivist]

I never said he did. But his voice is still important as he is apart of our history. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason principally authored, served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights, of which he has been deemed the father. Seems he is important enough right?

What he said is inspirational. My point is that his words carry no legal weight.

 

[Hank77]

Seen the list before.

??
New Orleans is ranked number one with 16.6 per 100,000. Memphis is ranked number two with 15 per 100,000. Those numbers decrease. Chicago is number 10 with 8.1 per 100,000.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

??
New Orleans is ranked number one with 16.6 per 100,000. Memphis is ranked number two with 15 per 100,000. Those numbers decrease. Chicago is number 10 with 8.1 per 100,000.

I know.