USA Gun Rights/Gun Control Discussion Thread

[Interdimensional Observer]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

So, you two. . .how's the wars in the Middle East going?

Are you referring to say the rebels in Syria that the US abandoned? And the toppled Ghaddfi regime in Syria? Or ISIS? Or Yemen? Are you saying that armed resistance against a modern state is still possible?

Well, yes it is. But is harder than in yesteryear? I would think so. Will the hell be worse than in yesteryear? Well when war is hell, it doesn't matter what circle. But technically, it could be worse with the assets of the modern state, if say the Hittites ever wanted to ethnic cleanse (IDK if they did), they didn't have the same measures of communication and record-keeping as states since ~WWI have.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Interdimensional Observer

[eclipse]

3 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Are you referring to say the rebels in Syria that the US abandoned? And the toppled Ghaddfi regime in Syria? Or ISIS? Or Yemen? Are you saying that armed resistance against a modern state is still possible?

Well, yes it is. But is harder than in yesteryear? I would think so. Will the hell be worse than in yesteryear? Well when war is hell, it doesn't matter what circle. But technically, it could be worse with the assets of the modern state, if say the Hittites ever wanted to ethnic cleanse (IDK if they did), they didn't have the same measures of communication and record-keeping as states since ~WWI have.

Like everything else, there's a specific reason why I asked.  As for that reason. . .I'll see if you're smart enough to connect the dots.

[XRay]

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

It needs to be updated, but at the same time it doesn't need to be updated

It was just updated back in 1992 with the 27th Amendment. I think the Constitution is sacrosanct, but it is not infallible. The Constitution, like the country, needs to improve and be more perfect overtime. Since the founding of the country 244 years ago with 17 additional Amendments since then, changing the Constitution is as American as July 4th and the IRS. Making the Constitution static would go against American tradition.

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

Do you really have faith in our politicians to act in good faith?

Not all of them are bad. It is our duty as citizens to at least do minimal research on the politicians we elect. If the politicians are bad, it is the fault of the citizenry for electing them in the first place.

If you dislike all current candidates, then run as one and be a politician. We even have a guy in Sacramento still trying to get elected despite having horrible grammar and wack ideas, and I remember there were freaking SPELLING MISTAKES in the last ballot because he did not bother to proofread his argument. If this wacko with poor grammar and spelling can run as a politician, I am sure anyone can too.

41 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

These days I can't really be bothered arguing about where gun control should go in the US - but one thing that I always despise is the notion that somehow more guns and a more armed populace makes the population safer. Which as we can tell from the US, is not true, unless the implication is that the US would be at troubled third-world country homicide status without guns.

A lot of the common "reasons" to own a gun are pretty flawed in nature.

I do not think the presence of guns is as strong of an influence compared to other factors on whether a country is safe or not. While we have a really high rate of gun ownership, I think other factors are better indicators of whether a country is safe or not, like education, infrastructure, economy, etc. If we have twice as many guns or half as many guns, I do not think it will have much impact on the safety of the country.

As long as a person is upstanding, I see no reason to take away their guns. I think stronger background checks, licensing requirements, ownership requirements, taxes, enforcement, etc. should be enough as far as regulations go to reduce gun violence. I think bans are unnecessary.

[Tryhard]

2 hours ago, XRay said:

I do not think the presence of guns is as strong of an influence compared to other factors on whether a country is safe or not. While we have a really high rate of gun ownership, I think other factors are better indicators of whether a country is safe or not, like education, infrastructure, economy, etc. If we have twice as many guns or half as many guns, I do not think it will have much impact on the safety of the country.

The implication is more about the folks the NRA and the like choose to peddle when they suggest things like teachers having guns as a solution, or the fact that having more guns than people makes America safer, when there's nothing to suggest that's the case.

Those are the real hardliners that are looking for justifications about why they should own firearms, not that they just have them as a hobby.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Tryhard

[XRay]

19 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

The implication is more about the folks the NRA and the like choose to peddle when they suggest things like teachers having guns as a solution, or the fact that having more guns than people makes America safer, when there's nothing to suggest that's the case.

Those are the real hardliners that are looking for justifications about why they should own firearms, not that they just have them as a hobby.

Ah, okay. That makes sense. Yeah, I am not sure if arming teachers is necessary. I do not think the number of guns will have much impact on safety either.

[Jotari]

8 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

That's a massive oversimplification of what would in reality be a very complex situation. That's why I don't like talking about this, too many unknowns and variables to deal with. But just so you know armed uprisings/revolutions do still happen in the modern day.

Oh of course they do. Any they've been an absolute bloody mess (commonly with a foreign power backing one or both sides which is absolutely something the United States founding fathers didn't want. That's why the whole no immigrants as president rule still applies in the USA).

Edited April 6, 2020 by Jotari

[PyroPlazma]

Quote

The fact that politicians today are SO HORRIBLE that we can't possibly make the constitution better.  Because let's face it, politics almost always found a way to screw over some group or other.  There's a reason why amendments exist so that non-white people/women can vote.

Yeah I'm pretty positive they won't make the constitution better they'll only make it objectively worse at this point. 

Quote

Please explain how each of these somehow gets in the way of owning a gun.

Oh so any gun law is fine as long as I own a gun on paper? You are aware that sufficient and proper gun can effectively ban certain types of firearms in their entirety right? The NFA alongside the 1984 law effectively bans automatic weapons from 95% of the population. 

Quote

When theory and reality don't match, it means that your theory needs to change.  So while I respect the fact that the people should have some recourse over a government gone wrong in theory, using consumer-grade guns as the method isn't as feasible.  I'm all for proper exceptions (see: another post somewhere in this thread), but those are fairly rare.

It's perfectly feasible depending on the circumstances, it's America is a thing today. People thought the revolutionary war would never be won by the colonist. Your theory of revolution needs to change, it doesn't consist of random people defeating their entire military in a large pitched battle over open ground generally. 

Quote

Would require a constitutional amendment.  Which you seem to be against.

I'm against a broad convention to try to rewrite and update the constitution. I could care less about individually trying to amend it. 

[XRay]

5 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

I'm against a broad convention to try to rewrite and update the constitution. I could care less about individually trying to amend it. 

What is wrong with rewriting and updating the Constitution? That is basically what amendments are. The 21st Amendment is all about nullifying the 18th Amendment.

[PyroPlazma]

1 minute ago, XRay said:

What is wrong with rewriting and updating the Constitution? That is basically what amendments are. The 21st Amendment is all about nullifying the 18th Amendment.

when I say update I mean updating the wording to account for modern day vernacular and advances in technology not necessarily in theory changing whats within the amendment itself. I.E. updating the first amendment to include the internet 

 

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

Oh so any gun law is fine as long as I own a gun on paper? You are aware that sufficient and proper gun can effectively ban certain types of firearms in their entirety right? The NFA alongside the 1984 law effectively bans automatic weapons from 95% of the population.

If you can't explain to me why the specific things you linked are detrimental to the freedom to bear arms, I can't be bothered with the rest of your arguments.  Fear-mongering for the sake of fear-mongering is unacceptable.

Edited April 6, 2020 by eclipse

[Shoblongoo]

19 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

 Who and what defines "reasonable"?

Lawmakers and judges.

19 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

No just any document, our nations founding document and one of these longest lasting founding documents in the world

...which is a nice cheery way of saying its older, less modernized, and less responsive to the current country conditions and policy needs then the laws of other nations.

I'd rather have good laws then old ones. 
 

19 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

Sure you can legally amend the constitution, but good luck with that. 

Unnecessary. All you need is a liberal interpretation to get from:

"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."

to

"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."

(See Justice Steven's dissenting opinion in Heller)

19 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

DC v Heller

...was a 5-4 split decision on a case-of-first impression.

And where the majority opinion of the late Justice Scalia has since been heavily criticized by legal scholars + the minority opinion widely discussed and cited.  

Which is to say that if the Supreme Court swings one vote to the left (i.e. Ginsburg lives long enough to retire + be replaced by a Democrat president, and then Clarence Thomas dies), the majority opinion in Heller is one that is likely getting overturned.

Moreover, you mischaracterize the Court's holding in that case to the extent you believe Heller completely precludes reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. As you yourself quoted from the opinion of the court:

 "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The majority opinion in Heller specifically held that one particular DC law which constituted a near total ban on private citizens keeping firearms in their home was an unreasonable restriction on the private right to gun ownership; not that the second amendment prohibits reasonable gun control.

The court was explicit that even by the most conservative of readings, the second amendment is not a blanket prohibition against any kind of gun laws. 
 

19 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

The NFA alongside the 1984 law effectively bans automatic weapons from 95% of the population.

Good. Thats a reasonable restriction.

95% of the population shouldn't be running around with automatic weapons.
 

19 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

It's always a elementary correlation implies causation case. 

If you account for all the relevant differences between America and these "developed nations" then you to acknowledge you're no longer comparing on even terms and alot of Americas differences contribute great to its higher gun homicide levels. Likewise other "developed nations" have reasons besides gun policy as to why they have lower gun homicide. 

This topic has been covered exhaustively in other threads, but just for the sake of putting it to bed let me bring you up to speed.

The way policy researchers and statisticians distinguish causation from correlation is by running multivariable linear regression models, to check for whats called multicolinearity.

Don't know how familiar you are with policy research or statistical analysis, but basically, this is how it works.

Take a simple, single-variable model:  y = m(x) + b  (i.e. the simple rise-over-run model we are learned in grade-school level math)  

Y is your dependent variable.
X is your independent variable
m is your slope (i.e. the magnitude of correlation)
b is your constant

...in this model, if (y) is levels of gun violence and (x) is strength of gun control laws, all that tells you is you have a correlation...

Now make the model:

y = [m1(x1)] + [m2 (x2)] + [m3(x3)] + [m4 (X4)] + [m5(x5)] + [m6 (x6)] + [m7(x7)] + [m8 (x8)] +  [m9(x9)] + [m10 (x10)] + b

Where:

m1 is strength of gun control laws
m2 is % of the population that has a high school education
m3 is population density
m4 is % racial homogeneity

...and so on and so forth...

Every purportedly explanitory dependent variable--throw it all in there.

When you do that,  what you can do is you can start comparing correlative values. You can see how those correlative values change or don't change depending on what variables you add or omit from the model.

And what researchers find when they do this is that no matter what variables you add to try to change the correlative values, the Big 3 that keep popping out as producing huge m-scores are:

1)  Poverty Rates
2) Education Levels
3) Strength of Gun Laws

This is how we know empirically that we have causation; not just correlation.

This is also how we know that when comparing the effects of (3), you're comparing apples-and-oranges if you aren't looking at countries that are similarly sitauted in (1) and (2). 

This is why when we talk about levels of gun violence in the USA compared to countries with effective gun control: our basis of comparison is the Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Oceania, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. 

And this is why trying to argue "gun control would increase violence; more guns makes us safer!" by comparing gun violence in the United States to countries like Ethiopia and Guatemala is silly. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[PyroPlazma]

8 hours ago, eclipse said:

If you can't explain to me why the specific things you linked are detrimental to the freedom to bear arms, I can't be bothered with the rest of your arguments.  Fear-mongering for the sake of fear-mongering is unacceptable.

Of course the website would take a massive dump forcing me to re-type this...

If you can't understand how certain extensive regulation on the functions of firearms can indirectly ban them, then I can't be bothered with the rest of your arguments. See I can be condescending as well. 

FYI The reason why bump stocks exist is due to the NFA and 1984 act which effectively bans automatic weapons for 95% of the population without stating it outright. Barring production while requiring extensive licensing and tax stamps makes owning automatic weapons prohibitively expensive and time consuming which in turn is why many say automatic weapons are effectively banned. Bump stocks were made to subvert this fact.

So remind me again how statements are "fear-mongering" when they are back by real world politicians saying these very things and in many pushing said legislation? 

Quote

Lawmakers and judges.

Who are vastly unqualified due to possessing zero knowledge in the function and operation of firearms

Quote

Unnecessary. All you need is a liberal interpretation to get from:

"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."

to

"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."

Militia act of 1903 defines unofficial militia as an able bodied man aged 17-45

You'll find "well regulated" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. .

 

Quote

 ...was a 5-4 split decision on a case-of-first impression.

And where the majority opinion of the late Justice Scalia has since been heavily criticized by legal scholars + the minority opinion widely discussed and cited.  

Which is to say that if the Supreme Court swings one vote to the left (i.e. Ginsburg lives long enough to retire + be replaced by a Democrat president, and then Clarence Thomas dies), the majority opinion in Heller is one that is likely getting overturned.

Moreover, you mischaracterize the Court's holding in that case to the extent you believe Heller completely precludes reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. As you yourself quoted from the opinion of the court:

 "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The majority opinion in Heller specifically held that one particular DC law which constituted a near total ban on private citizens keeping firearms in their home was an unreasonable restriction on the private right to gun ownership; not that the second amendment prohibits reasonable gun control.

The court was explicit that even by the most conservative of readings, the second amendment is not a blanket prohibition against any kind of gun laws. 

1. A win is a win regardless 

2. Me quoting DC v Heller was more to do with the pointing out the fact that individual citizens do have a constitutional right to own firearms and that it is not some privilege bestowed upon by the state or tied exclusively to militia service. 

3. Can you please link me these criticism of Judge Scalia in regards to this case

Quote

This topic has been covered exhaustively in other threads, but just for the sake of putting it to bed let me bring you up to speed.

Mind linking me?

Quote

The way policy researchers and statisticians distinguish causation from correlation is by running multivariable linear regression models, to check for whats called multicolinearity.

Don't know how familiar you are with policy research or statistical analysis, but basically, this is how it works.

Take a simple, single-variable model:  y = m(x) + b  (i.e. the simple rise-over-run model we are learned in grade-school level math)  

Y is your dependent variable.
X is your independent variable
m is your slope (i.e. the magnitude of correlation)
b is your constant

...in this model, if (y) is levels of gun violence and (x) is strength of gun control laws, all that tells you is you have a correlation...

Now make the model:

y = [m1(x1)] + [m2 (x2)] + [m3(x3)] + [m4 (X4)] + [m5(x5)] + [m6 (x6)] + [m7(x7)] + [m8 (x8)] +  [m9(x9)] + [m10 (x10)] + b

Where:

m1 is strength of gun control laws
m2 is % of the population that has a high school education
m3 is population density
m4 is % racial homogeneity

...and so on and so forth...

Every purportedly explanitory dependent variable--throw it all in there.

When you do that,  what you can do is you can start comparing correlative values. You can see how those correlative values change or don't change depending on what variables you add or omit from the model.

And what researchers find when they do this is that no matter what variables you add to try to change the correlative values, the Big 3 that keep popping out as producing huge m-scores are:

1)  Poverty Rates
2) Education Levels
3) Strength of Gun Laws

This is how we know empirically that we have causation; not just correlation.

This is also how we know that when comparing the effects of (3), you're comparing apples-and-oranges if you aren't looking at countries that are similarly sitauted in (1) and (2). 

This is why when we talk about levels of gun violence in the USA compared to countries with effective gun control: our basis of comparison is the Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Oceania, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. 

Can you please link the proper studies that state that gun control=less gun homicide?

Quote

And this is why trying to argue "gun control would increase violence; more guns makes us safer!" by comparing gun violence in the United States to countries like Ethiopia and Guatemala is silly. 

I have never asserted this.

[XRay]

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

Militia act of 1903 defines unofficial militia as an able bodied man aged 17-45

I do not think a militia can be unofficial, as that would just be a group of vigilantes. The document splits the militia into two groups, the National Guard and the Reserve. The National Guards and the Reserves are still in existence today.

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

You'll find "well regulated" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. .

Since a militia is already under government control, it is already regulated in the modern sense.

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

2. Me quoting DC v Heller was more to do with the pointing out the fact that individual citizens do have a constitutional right to own firearms and that it is not some privilege bestowed upon by the state or tied exclusively to militia service. 

That is where we disagree. While I generally will not dispute with judges and lawyers on matters of law, cause I am not a lawyer, the Second Amendment's language is simple enough that a lay person reading it will have no difficulty understanding what it means. If the Second Amendment was presented to anyone with no prior knowledge of American history, most will conclude that the right to bear arms is linked with the responsibility of the militia and defending the community.

While I prefer a loose interpretation of the law when it is in favor of more liberties, there is a difference between a loose interpretation of the law and completely twisting and ignoring parts of the law. I am okay with loosely interpreting the militia to mean any organized and sanctioned security force ranging from the actual militia, to the police, to even commercial security guard companies. I am okay with loosely interpreting people to mean individuals too. What I am not okay with is blatantly ignoring parts of the law where the right to do something and the responsibility of that right are written so closely together in the same sentence that they are so clearly linked.

Edited April 6, 2020 by XRay

[Benice]

Just something I felt like putting out here:

Canada, which has strict-ish gun laws, had 266 gun-related homicides in 2017..  (Alternate website if you'd prefer.)

America, which is far more liberal in these matters, had 39,773 gun-related deaths in 2017, and 14,542 gun homicides. (More alternate websites.)      (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)

Of course, Canada is FAR less populated than the U.S, sporting a 36.53 million population in 2017, which was less than California's 2017 population alone.

The U.S had a population of 325.7 million people in 2017, which means that there is a population ratio of almost 1:9. (According to my math, 8.915:1.)

So then, canada's population times nine= a bit more than the U.S's population. (328.77 million people.)

If we mutiply the amount of gun-related homicides in canada by nine, we get 2,394. 

Obviously, that isn't a practical way of predicting how many gun deaths canada would have with a population of 328.77 million people,  but that is still FAR fewer than what america had in 2017. Plus, a lot of those deaths were self-inflicted: of those 39,773 gun-related deaths, 23,854 of those were suicide. That is a ridiculously high number, especially for a developed country such as america.

I guess my point is that other countries have found ways to reduce gun-related deaths that are proven to work, and I find it sad how 23, 854 people committed suicide in 2017.

[PyroPlazma]

Quote

I do not think a militia can be unofficial, as that would just be a group of vigilantes. The document splits the militia into two groups, the National Guard and the Reserve. The National Guards and the Reserves are still in existence today.

The act literally defines official and non official militias. Militias normally by definition don't directly fall under government supervision unless federalized. The intention of the 1903 was to clearly establish the difference between regular civilian militias and the National Guard. Hence forth and to this day National Guardsmen attend Basic training with active duty/reservist and wear US Army uniforms (I was the Army for 3 years and can also speak with personal experience on this one). 

Quote

Since a militia is already under government control, it is already regulated in the modern sense.

Well regulated back when the constitution was written DID NOT MEAN GOVERNMENT REGULATION! It simply means in good/working order.

Quote

That is where we disagree. While I generally will not dispute with judges and lawyers on matters of law, cause I am not a lawyer, the Second Amendment's language is simple enough that a lay person reading it will have no difficulty understanding what it means. If the Second Amendment was presented to anyone with no prior knowledge of American history, most will conclude that the right to bear arms is linked with the responsibility of the militia and defending the community.

Yeah provided that person

1. Doesn't understand the constitution was written over 200 years people talked differently (see well-regulated)

2. Doesn't understand militia=regular citizens, both literally and legally.

3. Second amendment=A well armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and use weapons shall not infringed. Second somendment in a nutshell using modern vernacular.  

Quote

While I prefer a loose interpretation of the law when it is in favor of more liberties, there is a difference between a loose interpretation of the law and completely twisting and ignoring parts of the law. I am okay with loosely interpreting the militia to mean any organized and sanctioned security force ranging from the actual militia, to the police, to even commercial security guard companies. I am okay with loosely interpreting people to mean individuals too. What I am not okay with is blatantly ignoring parts of the law where the right to do something and the responsibility of that right are written so closely together in the same sentence that they are so clearly linked.

Nothing loose or broad about it, just read it several times to yourself. Then put yourself in the shoes of the founding fathers writing it. Specifically in regards to them having just fought a violent revolution to earn their independence. Said war was kicked off when the tyrannical government tried to disarm them (Take a wild guess why they'd do that). 

[XRay]

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

The act literally defines official and non official militias. Militias normally by definition don't directly fall under government supervision unless federalized. The intention of the 1903 was to clearly establish the difference between regular civilian militias and the National Guard. Hence forth and to this day National Guardsmen attend Basic training with active duty/reservist and wear US Army uniforms (I was the Army for 3 years and can also speak with personal experience on this one). 

The act literally does NOT define what a non-official militia is. There is only the official militia, and that the official militia is composed of men of certain ages divided into the National Guard and the Reserves.

Descriptors and Subordinate Clauses:
"That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."

Simplification:
"That the militia shall consist of every citizen, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia to be known as the National Guard, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."

A militia generally falls under some type of government supervision. A militia is used to defend the local community and the Second Amendment specifically mentions a free state, a democratic government. A militia with no government supervision is just a band of vigilantes. You cannot just grab a few buddies and say you formed a militia to defend your neighborhood without getting into conflict with the police. A militia needs some kind of government supervision, whether it is from a government of a town, city, county, state, or national government.

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

Well regulated back when the constitution was written DID NOT MEAN GOVERNMENT REGULATION! It simply means in good/working order.

I can agree with you that it did not mean government regulation, but that point is moot since a militia is already under government control. And since it is already under government control, it is going to be regulated in the modern sense and it should be well equipped and disciplined.

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

Yeah provided that person

1. Doesn't understand the constitution was written over 200 years people talked differently (see well-regulated)

2. Doesn't understand militia=regular citizens, both literally and legally.

3. Second amendment=A well armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and use weapons shall not infringed. Second somendment in a nutshell using modern vernacular.  

Even adjusting for the change in language, it does not guarantee an individual's right to own arms.

A militia cannot be unofficial, as that would just be a group of vigilantes. A militia needs to be organized by some kind of governmental body to have uniform equipment, training, discipline, etc. Even commercial security guard companies have some minimal level of governmental oversight and its employees have some uniform equipment and training.

A militia refers to a sanctioned, official organization. It makes no sense to have a group of vigilantes to protect the state. Even terrorists and gangs have an official hierarchy over the territory they control and it would make no sense for them to have another force protecting the same territory without some form of agreement or coordination, or else it would lead to cases of friendly fire.

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

Nothing loose or broad about it, just read it several times to yourself. Then put yourself in the shoes of the founding fathers writing it. Specifically in regards to them having just fought a violent revolution to earn their independence. Said war was kicked off when the tyrannical government tried to disarm them (Take a wild guess why they'd do that). 

Yeah, and they intend it for local and state governments to organize a militia to defend themselves, not a patchwork of vigilantes and lone wolves operating outside of the law.

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

The act literally defines official and non official militias. Militias normally by definition don't directly fall under government supervision unless federalized. The intention of the 1903 was to clearly establish the difference between regular civilian militias and the National Guard. Hence forth and to this day National Guardsmen attend Basic training with active duty/reservist and wear US Army uniforms (I was the Army for 3 years and can also speak with personal experience on this one). 

Well regulated back when the constitution was written DID NOT MEAN GOVERNMENT REGULATION! It simply means in good/working order.

Yeah provided that person

1. Doesn't understand the constitution was written over 200 years people talked differently (see well-regulated)

2. Doesn't understand militia=regular citizens, both literally and legally.

3. Second amendment=A well armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and use weapons shall not infringed. Second somendment in a nutshell using modern vernacular.  

Nothing loose or broad about it, just read it several times to yourself. Then put yourself in the shoes of the founding fathers writing it. Specifically in regards to them having just fought a violent revolution to earn their independence. Said war was kicked off when the tyrannical government tried to disarm them (Take a wild guess why they'd do that). 

I’ll get back to your response to my earlier post later, when I have time to type up a full length response myself, but for now I’ll leave you with this thought: part of the problem I’m seeing here is this blind hero-worship of the “Founding Fathers” (you call modern lawmakers and judges unqualified to write and interpret laws for a modern country, while referring to everything they said 2 centuries ago as perpetually better then anything subsequent generations of legal minds can conceivably say or do). What if I told you the words and writings of pre-industrial backwater aristocrats isn’t infallible, and that just because ‘the Founders’ said something that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea???

Edited April 6, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[PyroPlazma]

Quote

 

The act literally does NOT define what a non-official militia is. There is only the official militia, and that the official militia is composed of men of certain ages divided into the National Guard and the Reserves.

Descriptors and Subordinate Clauses:
"That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."

Simplification:
"That the militia shall consist of every citizen, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia to be known as the National Guard, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."

A militia generally falls under some type of government supervision. A militia is used to defend the local community and the Second Amendment specifically mentions a free state, a democratic government. A militia with no government supervision is just a band of vigilantes. You cannot just grab a few buddies and say you formed a militia to defend your neighborhood without getting into conflict with the police. A militia needs some kind of government supervision, whether it is from a government of a town, city, county, state, or national government.

 

10 U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes

U.S. Code

Notes

prev | next

(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Also Relevant

 

Quote

I can agree with you that it did not mean government regulation, but that point is moot since a militia is already under government control. And since it is already under government control, it is going to be regulated in the modern sense and it should be well equipped and disciplined.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html)

Quote

 

Even adjusting for the change in language, it does not guarantee an individual's right to own arms.

A militia cannot be unofficial, as that would just be a group of vigilantes. A militia needs to be organized by some kind of governmental body to have uniform equipment, training, discipline, etc. Even commercial security guard companies have some minimal level of governmental oversight and its employees have some uniform equipment and training.

A militia refers to a sanctioned, official organization. It makes no sense to have a group of vigilantes to protect the state. Even terrorists and gangs have an official hierarchy over the territory they control and it would make no sense for them to have another force protecting the same territory without some form of agreement or coordination, or else it would lead to cases of friendly fire.

 

Guaranteeing a individuals right to bear arms was literally whole point of the DV v Heller case, read it again.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Militias are not enacting "vigilante justice" They're protecting the state from external threats of internal tyranny. 

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change."

 

[Duff Ostrich]

Every few years or so I pop by around here and inevitably come upon a gun politics thread. Passionate as I am on the subject, I can't help by toss in my thoughts.

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

What if I told you the words and writings of pre-industrial backwater aristocrats isn’t infallible, and that just because ‘the Founders’ said something that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea???

Their judgement may not be infallible, but it is the law of the land and the foundation for this country. The arguments made to chip away at this foundation are not compelling in light of what American Liberalism (to use the word properly) represents. We are a free people, and I at least would like for it to remain that way.

The meaning of the second amendment is as plain as the language in which it was deliberately written. If our Bill of Rights, the original Constitutional amendments, were installed to dramatically limit the scope of government in relation to individual liberty, then it stands to reason (and is perfectly consistent with the philosophical character of our founding) that the purpose of the second of these amendments was to acknowledge and ensure that the rights of an individual man to possess weapons were not to be arbitrarily suppressed. The purpose of invoking the writings of the Founding Fathers is to dispel any misconception as to their intentions when drafting our Constitution, because it is obvious that they would have seen the disarming of the civilian population as a violation of our rights.

Jefferson, on the matter of constitutional interpretation:

 

Quote

[On] every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past.

Mind you, I did quote mine for an especially revealing line, but this is part of a larger argument that Jefferson makes. In that argument, he admits the challenge of constructing law through the limits of language, but he makes two points to keep in mind. First, that the primary objective of the Constitution was to ensure that the federal government would be divested of any authority that chiefly concerned the constituent states and the citizens therein. And second, as shown above, that the Constitution means precisely what it says, and nothing more. These laws can be changed (amended), but their meaning does not magically change over time. I am of a mind that this is good advice.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3562

Edited April 6, 2020 by Duff Ostrich

[XRay]

2 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Also Relevant

And private militias are still regulated by the government in some way, shape, or form. You cannot have a band of vigilantes going around working outside the law.

2 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html)

And that argument greatly hinges from the following argument, which I disagree with:

"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

And I generally agree with Justice Steven's dissent:

"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

"In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption."

2 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

Guaranteeing a individuals right to bear arms was literally whole point of the DV v Heller case, read it again.

I have read it, and I have also read portions of the dissenting opinions by Supreme Court Justices that you have ignored.

2 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

Militias are not enacting "vigilante justice" They're protecting the state from external threats of internal tyranny. 

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change."

And militias also need to be regulated by the government as I mentioned above. If they were not sanctioned in some way, shape, or form by the local government, then they are not militias. There is no difference between an "unofficial" militia and a band of vigilantes or a gang. There needs to be oversight and coordination between a militia and the government.

Edited April 6, 2020 by XRay

[Jotari]

Can we focus on the point I brought up? In my eyes all of this second amendment talk is moot. The point of arming the citizenry is that the government can't use superior military force to suppress them. It's not saying people should be allowed to form militas because militas are cool, it's an express check on government power, power which the United States has long since exceeded by spending hundreds of billions on their armed forces. It's not there to give citizens the right to protect themselves from people trying to steal their tv, it's there to protect them from the government which modern over the counter weaponry simply can't do. The first major violation of the second amendment would probably have been the American civil war where the federal army was used to suppress citizens organised into a milita. One can say they're morally justified in doing so because of the whole slavery thing, but it was very much the scenario the founding fathers didn't want.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jotari

[eclipse]

13 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

If you can't understand how certain extensive regulation on the functions of firearms can indirectly ban them, then I can't be bothered with the rest of your arguments. See I can be condescending as well.

You're the one that's carrying your side, and if you're going to go the emotional route after you said you'd provide links and whatnot, then you have no business being in this subforum.  Got it?

So, your next question: What is the purpose of automatic weapons, besides following the Second Amendment literally?

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Can we focus on the point I brought up? In my eyes all of this second amendment talk is moot. The point of arming the citizenry is that the government can't use superior military force to suppress them. It's not saying people should be allowed to form militas because militas are cool, it's an express check on government power, power which the United States has long since exceeded by spending hundreds of billions on their armed forces. It's not there to give citizens the right to protect themselves from people trying to steal their tv, it's there to protect them from the government which modern over the counter weaponry simply can't do. The first major violation of the second amendment would probably have been the American civil war where the federal army was used to suppress citizens organised into a milita. One can say they're morally justified in doing so because of the whole slavery thing, but it was very much the scenario the founding fathers didn't want.

So. . .how's the wars in the Middle East going?

Yes, that was addressed to you, and yes, I want my answer.

[PyroPlazma]

Quote

You're the one that's carrying your side, and if you're going to go the emotional route after you said you'd provide links and whatnot, then you have no business being in this subforum.  Got it?

Are you just going to sit there and pretend you didn't just say....

Quote

If you can't explain to me why the specific things you linked are detrimental to the freedom to bear arms, I can't be bothered with the rest of your arguments.  Fear-mongering for the sake of fear-mongering is unacceptable.

You yourself have provided zero links or data on your own while you condescendingly dismiss me then act as though I'm going the "emotional route" When I send some of that condescension back your way?

 

Quote

So, your next question: What is the purpose of automatic weapons, besides following the Second Amendment literally?

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame of me. 

So this line of argument started out with

Quote

Ironically, that POTUS you so despise is the one that's not going to restrict your guns (his voter base would be unhappy).

I replied with

 

Quote

Actions speak louder than words. POTUS has done absolutely nothing to strengthen gun rights.

TO which you responded with

Quote

Please explain how each of these somehow gets in the way of owning a gun.

This is the point where I failed to initially catch what was going on. 

Quote

Oh so any gun law is fine as long as I own a gun on paper? You are aware that sufficient and proper gun can effectively ban certain types of firearms in their entirety right? The NFA alongside the 1984 law effectively bans automatic weapons from 95% of the population. 

 

So we've gone from:

1. The POTUS will protect gun 

2. This was proven to be demonstrably false 

3. Then you pivoted to "Well this technically doesn't outright ban/confiscate guns so....."

4. Pointed out that sufficient draconian legislation can in effect ban something, see automatic weapons in America

5. Now we've arrived at "well why should we have automatic weapons?"

You just keep pivoting/moving the goal post to something easier (in your mind) to defend. 

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

You're the one that's carrying your side, and if you're going to go the emotional route after you said you'd provide links and whatnot, then you have no business being in this subforum.  Got it?

So, your next question: What is the purpose of automatic weapons, besides following the Second Amendment literally?

So. . .how's the wars in the Middle East going?

Yes, that was addressed to you, and yes, I want my answer.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I've already said they're a bloody mess, but I feel as if you're trying to get at something else there. Are you suggesting that they're a example as to why the USA should have looser gun laws should it come to a guerilla battle between the gun owning population of the USA and the government? Because that doesn't seem to be in line with the other opinions you're expressing in this thread. To argue against that I'd say A)No middle eastern country comes anywhere close to being the modern USA and B) an eternal war that can't be won and can only be maintained via indoctrinated terrorism is not what the founding fathers would have wanted. The whole right to bear arms thing was so the next generation of revolutionaries wouldn't have to fight a war in the first place like they did. Even with the supposition that an armed populace could win against a modernized army (something I'm very doubtful in the case of the USA army specifically), such a conflict would absolutely tear the country apart which is obviously something nobody wants.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Jotari

[PyroPlazma]

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I've already said they're a bloody mess, but I feel as if you're trying to get at something else there. Are you suggesting that they're a example as to why the USA should have looser gun laws should it come to a guerilla battle between the gun owning population of the USA and the government? Because that doesn't seem to be in line with the other opinions you're expressing in this thread.

She's using the common fallacious reasoning in opposition to a armed population being that unless the people collectively together rise up and roflstomp pro government forces in a immediate open battle then the entire effort is pointless. It's a False Dilemma fallacy.

They say the same thing about Germany disarming the Jews in preparation for the holocaust. The implication being unless they literally defeated the entire Wehrmacht then all would be pointless. Never mind the fact it's harder to shove people into trucks/trains to death camps when they're armed and no they otherwise have nothing to lose.   

Not to mention the Syrian civil war is alot more complicated than she likely believes. It hasn't been a complete and total roflstomp of the rebels either...