• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NRA in turmoil, gun manufacturers going bankrupt, Thanks Trump

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
I like how your use of ellipses ignores the other part of these consitutional words that are pretty much quite relevant and provides further context and more meaning to the declared right. ...but this is the same NRA nutball tactic of reinterpreting the constitution that they have been doing for the last 30 or 40 years. Only these words matter! Not those others in that sentence!
With all the commas in the 2nd Amendment it's not a very clear statement. Anyone reading it to say guns are ONLY allowed if you are in an organized militia is assuming just as much as someone who says it gives the people the ABSOLUTE right to bear arms.

Luckily, we know what the authors intended. The wanted the federal government to be unable to disarm citizens, so those armed citizens could be called up as a state militia in case their state needed to protect itself from an over reaching federal government. Just because that doesn't seem very likely to happen right now doesn't mean you can just ignore the amendment as no longer necessary.

Unless you have the votes to change it.;)
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,942
126
With all the commas in the 2nd Amendment it's not a very clear statement. Anyone reading it to say guns are ONLY allowed if you are in an organized militia is assuming just as much as someone who says it gives the people the ABSOLUTE right to bear arms.

Luckily, we know what the authors intended. The wanted the federal government to be unable to disarm citizens, so those armed citizens could be called up as a state militia in case their state needed to protect itself from an over reaching federal government. Just because that doesn't seem very likely to happen right now doesn't mean you can just ignore the amendment as no longer necessary.

Unless you have the votes to change it.;)
how do you know what the authors intended and if they didnt want it to be regulated why is that in the wording?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,921
20,845
136
how do you know what the authors intended and if they didnt want it to be regulated why is that in the wording?
The Federalist Papers go into more detail, but also note that Paladin didn't explicitly say whether or not a militia is required...just that "citizens not be disarmed."

Equivocating, but that really is what we have. The recent SCOTUS rulings since 1998 or whatever pretty much reject the previous 200 years of precedent on ruling on the matter--not that it was challenged very often. Most potential cases were just rejected. It was pretty much accepted law of the land that personal carry wherever you went was not a consitutional protection and that obviously certain firearms, if not all, could be subjected to certain reasonable regulation. Hell....the god-fucking NRA was founded for that explicit reason: lobbying for gun control and proper firearm use. Then they went utterly batshit when the GOP was hijacked by the surging Reagan fascists in the late 70s and determined that constitutional law should now be treated as a game show, by inventing "test cases" explicitly to challenge laws that butthurt evangelical sociopaths simply couldn't live with. Give them guns, too, and you will own their brains in perpetuity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
how do you know what the authors intended and if they didnt want it to be regulated why is that in the wording?
What Zinfamous said.

Plus, there is a vast difference between states being able to call up it's already armed citizens to serve in a well regulated militia if necessary vs. government only allowing citizens to be armed while they are actively serving in a well regulated militia. One infringes on the right of the people to keep and bare arms, while the other does not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,942
126
What Zinfamous said.

Plus, there is a vast difference between states being able to call up it's already armed citizens to serve in a well regulated militia if necessary vs. government only allowing citizens to be armed while they are actively serving in a well regulated militia. One infringes on the right of the people to keep and bare arms, while the other does not.
what if citizens that are in a well regulated state militia can keep their guns and others cant. Thats another option.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,187
3,503
136
And here I thought for some time that the "well regulated state militia" being mentioned hereabouts was the National Guard, AKA "Citizen Soldiers".
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,285
2,912
136
With all the commas in the 2nd Amendment it's not a very clear statement. Anyone reading it to say guns are ONLY allowed if you are in an organized militia is assuming just as much as someone who says it gives the people the ABSOLUTE right to bear arms.
That is right, but a founding concept of the constitution was also that it would be a living document that could be interpreted to the benefit of the people. If it can be interpreted either way, and the way we are interpreting it now is not working, it would seem to be time to interpret in the other way. If that doesn't work we can always go back.

Luckily, we know what the authors intended.
Yes, we do. They wanted black people to only count as 3/5th of a person, women not to count at all, and only wealthy landowners to have any say in government. Maybe we shouldn't lean to heavily on what they wanted?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSt0rm

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,106
400
136
what if citizens that are in a well regulated state militia can keep their guns and others cant. Thats another option.
I believe the idea was that when the call went out anyone that was capable of defending the state could answer. Creating clubs where we can allow some people to have firearms defeats the point that defending our homeland is the job of everyone.

And here I thought for some time that the "well regulated state militia" being mentioned hereabouts was the National Guard, AKA "Citizen Soldiers".
That's part of it, but the question becomes what happens when the President calls them into action and deploys them elsewhere, or worse against a state? It would fall to the citizens to stand up. Which is where 2A comes in.

Yes, I know this isn't something that's going to happen at all, but we're speaking to why when they put the Constitution together they felt making sure the citizens were armed was so important they made it number 2 on the list. Right behind being able to speak out.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,942
126
I believe the idea was that when the call went out anyone that was capable of defending the state could answer. Creating clubs where we can allow some people to have firearms defeats the point that defending our homeland is the job of everyone.

That doesnt sound well regulated to me.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,126
14,318
136
The war of 1812 proved to our govt that the whole notion of citizen militias defending the country was bogus. It didn't work worth a damn. Prior to that, militia arms were generally kept in armories, like the one the British tried to confiscate in Concord sparking open rebellion.

There are, in fact, official state militias across the country. I seriously doubt whatever weapons they have are kept at home by the members. Feel free to join up-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

Guns were actually rare in this country prior to the Civil War-

Spiking the Gun Myth

The govt wanted to increase private gun ownership so that they wouldn't have to spend so much on guns themselves. The idea that the people had the right to defend themselves against tyrannical govt meant foreign govts, not our own, despite how gun fetishists have twisted the argument.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
what if citizens that are in a well regulated state militia can keep their guns and others cant. Thats another option.
I think that's exactly one of the options I laid out.

Edit: unless you mean citizens only have the right to own a gun if they have already served in a state militia? How about we make a term of federal or state service required before someone has the right to vote while we are at it?
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
That is right, but a founding concept of the constitution was also that it would be a living document that could be interpreted to the benefit of the people. If it can be interpreted either way, and the way we are interpreting it now is not working, it would seem to be time to interpret in the other way. If that doesn't work we can always go back.
We don't change things like our Constitution, or any laws really, on the hope that they will solve some problem. It requires at lest SOME evidence that it will likely achieve the desired results. And it has to not be overly burdensome on the rights of law abiding citizens. We don't pass laws in this country on feels and hopes.

Yes, we do. They wanted black people to only count as 3/5th of a person, women not to count at all, and only wealthy landowners to have any say in government. Maybe we shouldn't lean to heavily on what they wanted?
First off, fuck you for trying to imply that gun-owners are bigots, misogynists and anti-democratic. And don't tell me you're not. If you want to debate at least do it honestly.

Secondly, the will of the American people changed those archaic laws for the better. We've grown as a culture and equality is the law of the land now. This is a good thing.

Thirdly, we have plenty of gun control laws on the books and murder is already illegal. It's even punishable by death in many places. But sick/evil/criminal folks still kill regardless. What constitutional laws do you propose that will stop them? Ban all the guns? Good luck. When you figure out how please let me know. But I'm not supporting disarming the 99.9+% of law-abiding gun owners who are not the problem just so you can test out your theory that the sick/evil/criminal folks will follow our example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IJTSSG

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
That doesnt sound well regulated to me.
Are you purposely being dense? There is no requirement that you be in a well-regulated militia to own a gun. There never has been. The 2A was written with the intent of making sure citizens had the right to keep and bear arms so they COULD be called up to serve in a state militia if the state needed protection from an overreaching federal government.

You can't sit there and tell me the authors of the Constitution were a bunch of bigots, racists and misogynists so disregard what they wrote, then pick one phrase out and twist it to fit your agenda.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IJTSSG

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
The war of 1812 proved to our govt that the whole notion of citizen militias defending the country was bogus. It didn't work worth a damn. Prior to that, militia arms were generally kept in armories, like the one the British tried to confiscate in Concord sparking open rebellion.

There are, in fact, official state militias across the country. I seriously doubt whatever weapons they have are kept at home by the members. Feel free to join up-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

Guns were actually rare in this country prior to the Civil War-

Spiking the Gun Myth

The govt wanted to increase private gun ownership so that they wouldn't have to spend so much on guns themselves. The idea that the people had the right to defend themselves against tyrannical govt meant foreign govts, not our own, despite how gun fetishists have twisted the argument.
Agreed, but what is your point? What are we debating? Whether guns should be banned or not? Just because armed civilians wouldn't make an effective militia in modern times isn't exactly a compelling reason to ban guns.

I don't know why you think gun-owners have to justify or come up with a reason that is satisfactory in your mind to enjoy their 2A rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IJTSSG

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,942
126
I think that's exactly one of the options I laid out.

Edit: unless you mean citizens only have the right to own a gun if they have already served in a state militia? How about we make a term of federal or state service required before someone has the right to vote while we are at it?
well regulated voters arent in the constitution.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,942
126
Are you purposely being dense? There is no requirement that you be in a well-regulated militia to own a gun. There never has been. The 2A was written with the intent of making sure citizens had the right to keep and bear arms so they COULD be called up to serve in a state militia if the state needed protection from an overreaching federal government.

You can't sit there and tell me the authors of the Constitution were a bunch of bigots, racists and misogynists so disregard what they wrote, then pick one phrase out and twist it to fit your agenda.
you can report to the state and apply to get your guns back. Please fill out forms 1345-a 1488-b and 5234-ab
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,942
126
i mean you doubled up photos in each post and double posted it. We are supposed to believe with your photo posting skills you can be safe with all those guns and a toddler?
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,555
3,726
126
I used to watch Wild, Wild West when I was a kid. And Bonanza, Little House on the Prairie, The Big Valley and all those shows. Happy Days and Kung Fu rocked too.
Back in the day I watched Bonanza faithfully, also Have Gun Will Travel ("Have gun will travel" was what the hero, Palladin, had on his business card), it was on Friday evenings.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY