I have questions for 2A absolutists

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,857
31,346
146
I'm not angry at all. I don't really care if you do gun buybacks. I just don't think they do what you think they do, but if you like doing things like this that are more for show then have at it. And what research that's been done finds a very mild at best correlation to changes in crime rates afterwards, basically almost at the level of statistically insignificant.

Fine. ...but we've now established that two people, pretty much on the same side of the 2A debate here, have very different assumed truths based on their own individual "common sense."

How do we arrive at that? ...that's not the important question, I guess. I would think, at least, that after establishing how common sense is a particularly awful way to establish legal/public policy, we should at least stop using this kind of argument and instead ask how we are going to eliminate such obvious biases from our argument/evidence-based positions, right?

That's what stopped me. If you recall, I tend to agree with you guys on the effectiveness of gun buybacks, but I simply asked myself why I agree with that because I've only heard anecdote-based assumptions about what these buybacks accomplish.

--I do think the cash for clunkers situation is a good way to model this type of program but hey! we have a lot of data on how that worked out to make an informed decision on whether it actually worked or not. See, that's how we make decisions. It's why gun buybacks are always suggested/keep happening. Maybe we don't have good data? Why don't we have good data? It's something that we can actually collect but, as you know, there is a long history of the jihadist NRA long lobbying against any gun-related data collection from all sorts of relevant sectors: CDC (public safety--extremely relevant); personal healthcare (personal health--extremely relevant). I don't know why--it sure seems like they have some reason to fear the collection of good data. It's like they are worried about things they already know becoming very public. ...just like Big Tobacco, Exxon, Purdue Pharma and J&J before them....just things, you know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
No one made that argument about "owning a gun means you're in a militia." To be fair you should likewise recognize that when written, the militia basically did consist of every white male capable of bearing arms and most everyone did own arms back then so "people vs. militia" was a distinction without a difference. Obviously gun ownership demographics have changed since then and gun ownership has gone from very widely held (perhaps near universal) to much more selective.

However if we examine the 2A using a logical understanding of language rather than motivated/wishful thinking, the use of the word "the people" carries the implicit concept that citizens would own and bear the arms, and those armed citizens then in turn compose any militia. If the intent was to limit "bearing arms" to only militias the authors could have easily specified this.

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.

Is not:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The reason for the addition of the language about militias in the prefatory clause wasn't meant to restrict individual citizens from owning/bearing arms. Rather it was a concession to the reality of southern states who routinely used their "militias" to serve as search parties for escaped slaves. One supposes that given the kerfuffle the otherwise simple language has caused over the years, the framers should have split the 2A into two bits (one enshrining the rights of militias to exist, another to enshrine the right of the people to keep and bear arms) but obviously they did not. That still doesn't mean we need to create imagined rationales to bypass a core plank of the Bill of RIghts. Enshrining 2A as a "group right" only exerciseable via collective militias makes zero sense any more than saying the 1A right of freedom of speech is a "group right" where exercising it has a prerequisite that you belong to a journalist collective. Or that "the people" refers to the state for whom the right is protecting instead of individuals since 1A uses the same "the people" language and 10A used "states".

You don't get it and you will continue to not get it because you keep thinking the 2nd was conveying rights to individuals whereas it is conveying rights to the states not militias as you have falsely claimed I was implying. The supreme court recognized this for 150 years until Heller, in 2007, using questionable legal theory based on an ideology that's been inconsistently applied since.

The state's only defense were its people and it was up to the state's to determine how they wished to defend themselves and they very well can't do that if their militias can't be armed because of a federal law. The constitution made sure that would never happen.

Logically speaking, it makes zero sense for a state government to rely on randomly armed people to defend itself when it very well could be those same people who are attacking it (also known as an insurrection, do you need historical examples). Randomly armed people defending a state does not make them a militia.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
A google search on what? You're being incoherent.

I haven't taken offense to anything, aside from your representation of the national guard. If that's what you mean, then it's your right to have an opinion about them, and my right to say that you're flat wrong.

Are you having trouble following along? You asked what authority I had to classify what a militia is and how it differentiates against a military, I explained I have no authority, just like you have no authority. So google it and use whatever authority you'd like. I chose actual dictionary definitions and Wikipedia.

Or continue to complain about irrelevant nonsense like how people who are in the national guard would take offense to "my" definition of militia.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,370
16,645
146
You don't get it and you will continue to not get it because you keep thinking the 2nd was conveying rights to individuals whereas it is conveying rights to the states not militias as you have falsely claimed I was implying.
Then why did the founders have specific statements to the contrary? Why do you believe that you know better the intentions of those that wrote, and ratified the document and amendments than the written word of those people?

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,370
16,645
146
Are you having trouble following along? You asked what authority I had to classify what a militia is and how it differentiates against a military, I explained I have no authority, just like you have no authority. So google it and use whatever authority you'd like. I chose actual dictionary definitions and Wikipedia.

Or continue to complain about irrelevant nonsense like how people who are in the national guard would take offense to "my" definition of militia.
The fuck are you on about? I was never arguing over the definition of a militia, I simply reject your proposal that the 2A was ever limited to a militia.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Fine. ...but we've now established that two people, pretty much on the same side of the 2A debate here, have very different assumed truths based on their own individual "common sense."

How do we arrive at that? ...that's not the important question, I guess. I would think, at least, that after establishing how common sense is a particularly awful way to establish legal/public policy, we should at least stop using this kind of argument and instead ask how we are going to eliminate such obvious biases from our argument/evidence-based positions, right?

That's what stopped me. If you recall, I tend to agree with you guys on the effectiveness of gun buybacks, but I simply asked myself why I agree with that because I've only heard anecdote-based assumptions about what these buybacks accomplish.

--I do think the cash for clunkers situation is a good way to model this type of program but hey! we have a lot of data on how that worked out to make an informed decision on whether it actually worked or not. See, that's how we make decisions. It's why gun buybacks are always suggested/keep happening. Maybe we don't have good data? Why don't we have good data? It's something that we can actually collect but, as you know, there is a long history of the jihadist NRA long lobbying against any gun-related data collection from all sorts of relevant sectors: CDC (public safety--extremely relevant); personal healthcare (personal health--extremely relevant). I don't know why--it sure seems like they have some reason to fear the collection of good data. It's like they are worried about things they already know becoming very public. ...just like Big Tobacco, Exxon, Purdue Pharma and J&J before them....just things, you know.

Those "assumed truths" don't conflict. Mine was saying that folks won't sell their guns (or anything else) in a buyback unless the price offered meets or exceeds market price, and if above market they're likely to arbitrage (buying new guns to capture the positive amount over market price offered in the buyback). The other poster's assumed truth was basically "if they're selling the gun in a buyback they likely didn't want the gun in the first place."
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You don't get it and you will continue to not get it because you keep thinking the 2nd was conveying rights to individuals whereas it is conveying rights to the states not militias as you have falsely claimed I was implying. The supreme court recognized this for 150 years until Heller, in 2007, using questionable legal theory based on an ideology that's been inconsistently applied since.

The state's only defense were its people and it was up to the state's to determine how they wished to defend themselves and they very well can't do that if their militias can't be armed because of a federal law. The constitution made sure that would never happen.

Logically speaking, it makes zero sense for a state government to rely on randomly armed people to defend itself when it very well could be those same people who are attacking it (also known as an insurrection, do you need historical examples). Randomly armed people defending a state does not make them a militia.

So does the 1A and others pertain to rights for the states then since the 1A uses the same language "the people"? Seems odd that states like Virginia would need to have their right to freedom "to peacefully assemble" protected since an inanimate construct like a state can't just move over and hang out with New York to assemble. Seems much more reasonable that "the right of the people" refers to individuals and absolutely not states since that's how it's used everywhere else in the Constitution and specific examples that are relevant to states like the 10th clearly says "the states."
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
Then why did the founders have specific statements to the contrary? Why do you believe that you know better the intentions of those that wrote, and ratified the document and amendments than the written word of those people?

The founding fathers had lots of different opinions. Have you included all of them here? No? Then I'll rely on what ALL the founding fathers (and subsequent states/Congress) agreed to by relying on what was actually written in the constitution.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
So does the 1A and others pertain to rights for the states then since the 1A uses the same language "the people"? Seems odd that states like Virginia would need to have their right to freedom "to peacefully assemble" protected since an inanimate construct like a state can't just move over and hang out with New York to assemble. Seems much more reasonable that "the right of the people" refers to individuals and absolutely not states since that's how it's used everywhere else in the Constitution and specific examples that are relevant to states like the 10th clearly says "the states."

Can you show me where in the 1st amendment the state is mentioned? No? Then what a fucking ridiculous question to ask.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,370
16,645
146
The founding fathers had lots of different opinions. Have you included all of them here? No? Then I'll rely on what ALL the founding fathers (and subsequent states/Congress) agreed on by relying on what was actually written in the constitution.
As long as you're doing that, you're clearly relying on something open to interpretation by some, given that we're sitting here arguing about it. You either put the words written in the context of the late 1700's alongside everything else that was written with it, or we sit here arguing until the end of time on what the word 'is' is. Or we can re-amend it to whatever we feel like, if you think you can get that to work. I'll just wait here.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Can you show me where in the 1st amendment the state is mentioned? No? Then what a fucking ridiculous question to ask.

Show me where in the 2nd amendment the state is mentioned. That's kinda my point. YOU were the one saying the 2A applied to states, let me quote you:
You don't get it and you will continue to not get it because you keep thinking the 2nd was conveying rights to individuals whereas it is conveying rights to the states not militias as you have falsely claimed I was implying

1A: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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


So you not only continue to be very wrong, but getting mad and confused about how you're wrong. The "right of the people" refers to an individual right in both cases. If it applied to the states it would say so, like it did in the 10th.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You'll notice that in the same Bill of Rights that "states" and "the people" are clearly 2 distinct and separate entities.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
As long as you're doing that, you're clearly relying on something open to interpretation by some, given that we're sitting here arguing about it. You either put the words written in the context of the late 1700's alongside everything else that was written with it, or we sit here arguing until the end of time on what the word 'is' is. Or we can re-amend it to whatever we feel like, if you think you can get that to work. I'll just wait here.

Lol I've already put the words in context, using the constitution itself.

Keep flailing though.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,370
16,645
146
Lol I've already put the words in context, using the constitution itself.

Keep flailing though.
The constitution is the thing we've been arguing about. You can't simply state that you're right without a reason. Based on the reading, it's my rationalization that there's no way that can be interpreted to mean only an organized militia on the scale of the National Guard. I've got quotes from those that wrote the document that agree with me. What do you have to back up your stance that a militia is something different than 'the people'?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
Show me where in the 2nd amendment the state is mentioned. That's kinda my point. YOU were the one saying the 2A applied to states, let me quote you:

1A: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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


So you not only continue to be very wrong, but getting mad and confused about how you're wrong. The "right of the people" refers to an individual right in both cases. If it applied to the states it would say so, like it did in the 10th.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You'll notice that in the same Bill of Rights that "states" and "the people" are clearly 2 distinct and separate entities.

Holy shit! You don't know where the state is mentioned in the 2 amendment? Wow!

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.

The security of a free state is what's being discussed here.

You'll notice that in the same Bill of Rights that "states" and "the people" are clearly 2 distinct and separate entities.

Yeah no shit. That's why most of the 1st is about the people and why the 2nd is about the states. Its you who can't seem to differentiate between the two entities.

I'm glad you finally figured it out.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
The constitution is the thing we've been arguing about. You can't simply state that you're right without a reason. Based on the reading, it's my rationalization that there's no way that can be interpreted to mean only an organized militia on the scale of the National Guard. I've got quotes from those that wrote the document that agree with me. What do you have to back up your stance that a militia is something different than 'the people'?

When you learn how to not use a straw man we can continue the conversation.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,370
16,645
146
When you learn how to not use a straw man we can continue the conversation.
Do you know what a straw man is? I feel like you don't. I'm literally talking about the thing we're discussing and you're telling me I'm building a straw man.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Those "assumed truths" don't conflict. Mine was saying that folks won't sell their guns (or anything else) in a buyback unless the price offered meets or exceeds market price, and if above market they're likely to arbitrage (buying new guns to capture the positive amount over market price offered in the buyback). The other poster's assumed truth was basically "if they're selling the gun in a buyback they likely didn't want the gun in the first place."

The buying of new guns would obviously depend on what's legally available.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
Do you know what a straw man is? I feel like you don't. I'm literally talking about the thing we're discussing and you're telling me I'm building a straw man.

Let me break it down for you because you seem to be struggling.

I believe, as has the supreme court up until 2007, that the 2nd amendment is a states right issue. Period.

You want to believe that I think the 2nd amendment applies only to militias. That's straw man. Do I need to Google that shit for you as well?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,370
16,645
146
Let me break it down for you because you seem to be struggling.

I believe, as has the supreme court up until 2007, that the 2nd amendment is a states right issue. Period.

You want to believe that I think the 2nd amendment applies only to militias. That's straw man. Do I need to Google that shit for you as well?
Understood, there's been about a dozen different discussions on this thread regarding who the 2A applies to (furthering my argument that it's clearly open to interpretation).

I also reject your notion that it applies to states, as a state cannot wield a weapon. It necessitates a human holding a firearm, and thus the human must be the armed one. If a human is restricted from bearing arms, a state cannot maintain a militia or an armed defense, ergo it requires arming people.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
Understood, there's been about a dozen different discussions on this thread regarding who the 2A applies to (furthering my argument that it's clearly open to interpretation).

I also reject your notion that it applies to states, as a state cannot wield a weapon. It necessitates a human holding a firearm, and thus the human must be the armed one. If a human is restricted from bearing arms, a state cannot maintain a militia or an armed defense, ergo it requires arming people.

/facepalm

Surely you understand that a state can most certainly decide who, when, and how to arm people. Because I hope to god you aren't simply trolling right now because the state's certainly do maintain a militia aka a national guard/reserves and they certainly restrict who can be in that militia, when they can be in the militia, and how the militia acts (as in practices and how its called to duty).

If normal citizens of a state were not armed the state could still arm its militia members, the state would simply have to be the one to provide the weapons (which is exactly what happens in the present).

This really boils down to a simply misunderstanding of what a militia is and applying it in context of when the 2nd was written and the logistics at the time. Militias aren't a standing army, they aren't comprised of random people, its an organized group of people regulated by rules and standards set forth by the state. To believe otherwise is a belief in anarchy and outlaw-ism. All of that is moot, of course, because we now have a national guard to rely on to defend ourselves as well as a standing army.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,370
16,645
146
Can I lead with stating that your insistence on sprinkling shit in with all your posts makes it hard to take you seriously? The 'lol's and '/emotes' and myriad schoolyard insults are wearing thin.
Surely you understand that a state can most certainly decide who, when, and how to arm people.
To be clear, this is your interpretation. Based on the present SC-established norms, that would conflict with the 2A.

Because I hope to god you aren't simply trolling right now because the state's certainly do maintain a militia aka a national guard/reserves and they certainly restrict who can be in that militia, when they can be in the militia, and how the militia acts (as in practices and how its called to duty).
Technically true for the state's militia, but a militia need not be affiliated with a state, and the state CANNOT dictate how that militia behaves, beyond the laws of that state. That's generally referred to as an unorganized militia, and the name notwithstanding, is perfectly acceptable as an example of a militia, if you really insist on believing that the 2a only applies to militias. There's zero reason why a militia cannot consist of a single person, or a household.

This really boils down to a simply misunderstanding of what a militia is and applying it in context of when the 2nd was written and the logistics at the time.
No, this boils down to you having a strong opinion of what the 2A should cover, which flies in the face of several hundred years of people owning guns legally, and the Constitution halting countless attempts to restrict or eliminate that right.
Militias aren't a standing army, they aren't comprised of random people, its an organized group of people regulated by rules and standards set forth by the state.
Not necessarily.
To believe otherwise is a belief in anarchy and outlaw-ism.
False.
All of that is moot, of course, because we now have a national guard to rely on to defend ourselves as well as a standing army.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
 

Luna1968

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2019
1,205
687
136
Personal liability insurance on all firearms. Must be renewed annually. Can't sell a gun without proof of liability insurance to your state records. I can't transfer a car without proving it. Shouldn't be able to sell a gun without it either.

"Liability" tax on all ammo and parts required to case/refill your own. It will be indexed to the death toll and hospital costs of gun violence the previous year.

If we can't ban something, we can tax the shit out of it. It's the 'Murican way!

holy hell what state do you live in where you need car insurance to sell a car? I know I need proof of insurance to get my tags but not to buy.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,515
17,019
136
Can I lead with stating that your insistence on sprinkling shit in with all your posts makes it hard to take you seriously? The 'lol's and '/emotes' and myriad schoolyard insults are wearing thin.

To be clear, this is your interpretation. Based on the present SC-established norms, that would conflict with the 2A.


Technically true for the state's militia, but a militia need not be affiliated with a state, and the state CANNOT dictate how that militia behaves, beyond the laws of that state. That's generally referred to as an unorganized militia, and the name notwithstanding, is perfectly acceptable as an example of a militia, if you really insist on believing that the 2a only applies to militias. There's zero reason why a militia cannot consist of a single person, or a household.


No, this boils down to you having a strong opinion of what the 2A should cover, which flies in the face of several hundred years of people owning guns legally, and the Constitution halting countless attempts to restrict or eliminate that right.

Not necessarily.

False.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

You are simply wrong on every count.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Let me break it down for you because you seem to be struggling.

I believe, as has the supreme court up until 2007, that the 2nd amendment is a states right issue. Period.

You want to believe that I think the 2nd amendment applies only to militias. That's straw man. Do I need to Google that shit for you as well?

So it’s a states rights issue that’s regulated and restricted at a federal level with laws like Firearms Control Act? That makes zero sense.