Page 140 of 160 FirstFirst ... 4090130138139140141142150 ... LastLast
Results 1,391 to 1,400 of 1592

Thread: Gun control

  1. #1391
    Venturi3D.com for the FUTURE MR2 Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    Posts
    2,902
    IMO the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be changed, it's interpretation needs to be better defined.....the whole "well-regulated militia" part has to MEAN something, not any nutjob with a bone to pick (and I mean that literally, since the Trump administration removed restrictions for people with mental health issues to buy guns)
    ║]=(86)=[║ Venturi3D.com

  2. #1392
    Dead Brand Ambassador dodint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    'Trep
    Posts
    2,924
    Quote Originally Posted by MR2 Fan View Post
    IMO the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be changed, it's interpretation needs to be better defined.....the whole "well-regulated militia" part has to MEAN something, not any nutjob with a bone to pick (and I mean that literally, since the Trump administration removed restrictions for people with mental health issues to buy guns)
    Not trying to pick on you or anything, but consider reading the decision in Heller. It goes into great, great detail (almost painfully so) about that exact thing. And it's current SCOTUS law on 2A interpretation. It is exactly what you're asking for:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

    The most simplistic form of the holding is that 'anyone can be in a militia, so everyone is protected by the 2A.'
    I tried to post section II in a spoiler tag, but it was 8x as long allowed.

    The Wiki summary looks like this:

    The Supreme Court held:

    (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.
    (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.
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
    The Second Amendment has two clauses which read: “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.”

    Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The operative clause is the actual protected right.
    Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The prefatory clause is the lead-in that announces a purpose for the operative clause. The court stated: "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".

    The court also stated: "The Amendment could be rephrased, 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'”.

    The court states: "It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia", adding "Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.

    It's clear from the court's ruling regarding the relationship between the prefatory and operative clause that the militia meant that all of the people were armed.

    “The 'militia' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved”.

    Anyway, that's about as small as I can distill it down to and it's probably somewhat confusing out of context. I urge you to read the full opinion, particularly Section II. If you are disheartened by it, Section III will be uplifting as it talks about how the right isn't 'unlimited' so it gives something for the anti-gun crowd to hang their hat on. The takeaway from this post is that the SCOTUS doesn't acknowledge militia membership as a requirement to own guns and until that changes complaining about the word 'militia' doesn't carry any legal weight as it's decided law already.

  3. #1393
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,975
    Rwa, I agree there are lots of chk and balances here in the US, that's why I'm not signing up to become a rebel yet! However, election of Somebody like Trump is a concern. Who'd thought he'd be president?

    So anything can happen. Right to bear arm to fight the govt is just a last ditch effort when all other chk and balances failed. When my wife and kid murdered..., then I will be glad that we have lots of guns in America for me to fight this evil empire.

    For now, having this many guns is for sure problematic, even with perfect gun control laws! I can readily admit to that.

    DN, do you really believe an evil corrupt regime would actually surrender power without a fight?

    Do you also believe all Germans supported Hitler all the way thru WWII? If Germans had that many guns in their basement as Americans, surely WWII wouldn't last as long as it had... sure, most want to make Germany great again, but once they realized they were duped, there's no way to fight back other than hiding a few Jews in their basement. If they had more guns in their basement, Hitler would not be able to concentrate on attacking its neighbors.

    I do agree it's seemingly impossible to overthrow the US govt with just guns at this point in time, but it's important for us crazy American freedom fighters to make the job of our next hitler as difficult as possible. Can't do that without 2nd Amendment.
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; May 7th, 2018 at 09:00 AM.

  4. #1394
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity View Post
    DN, do you really believe an evil corrupt regime would actually surrender power without a fight?

    Do you also believe all Germans supported Hitler all the way thru WWII? If Germans had that many guns in their basement as Americans, surely WWII wouldn't last as long as it had... sure, most want to make Germany great again, but once they realized they were duped, there's no way to fight back other than hiding a few Jews in their basement. If they had more guns in their basement, Hitler would not be able to concentrate on attacking its neighbors.

    I do agree it's seemingly impossible to overthrow the US govt with just guns at this point in time, but it's important for us crazy American freedom fighters to make the job of our next hitler as difficult as possible. Can't do that without 2nd Amendment.
    How would having a gun have helped the Germans?
    Anyone who could fight was armed and fighting already!
    I’d guess the average person was more worried about winning or just surviving the war rather than attempting to over throw their own leader.

    I just can’t see a situation we’re individuals having a gun is going to help.
    Who is this “govt” that you will aim at and shoot? The police and military under govt control? So what about their friends and family who support them and also have guns?
    What if only 25% support the govt, they have guns and would use them as well.
    Either it ends in an ugly civil war or the guns are of no use and or you use other means to topple them.

    The more likely event is a small percentage don’t like something the govt does and you have an armed uprising that gets crushed. Putting guns in their hands makes them feel powerful but just ends in a lot of deaths. Eg the Waco incident.

    Individual gun ownership is not a solution to issues of democracy.
    With a standing military it’s not a solution to national defense.

  5. #1395
    Venturi3D.com for the FUTURE MR2 Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    Posts
    2,902
    Yeah, having a gun works really well if the government:

    1.) Turns off your electricity
    2.) Turns off your water
    3.) drives tanks up to your house and prevents you from leaving

    Even the almighty (sarcasm) AR-15 wouldn't be able to fight that
    ║]=(86)=[║ Venturi3D.com

  6. #1396
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,975
    May I ask what is the solution then? Peace talks?

    When the entire mighty us military became storm troopers, what else can you fight them with? Rocks and light sabers?

    Did nazi Germany remained a democracy?

    Remember I'm talking worst case scenario here. I'm not advocating we use guns to overthrow Trump right now. Only when other check and balances failed and voting/gun rights taken away.

    Only then I'd be very happy with the shit load of weapons in the hands of ordinary Americans.

  7. #1397
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,046
    It’s such a crazy unlikely scenario that you don’t need to worry about. Certainly not arm yourself because it might happen - the US turns into North Korea.

    In the early days of the country there was no permanent military. So it made sense to have armed civilians who could double as a militia to protect the country from outside forces.
    But the same logic doesn’t apply to internal issues. That why you have a system of govt with different sets of people with different powers.
    Even if all those people collude to turn it into a dictorship, unless they have at least a decent percentage of the public on their side it won’t work. If they do have people on their side we now have two armed groups - how is that going to end?

    Public uprisings to overthrow govts do happen. Rarely are the public armed, unless it’s already been an ongoing civil war.
    Otherwise public rallies have worked. The fact is usually some high placed military people realising it’s the time to swap teams! Yes the power is often ultimately with weapons, but these day military power is way more than civilians could have. But get the military to follow the public not the politicians and it ends quickly.

    Being president (elected or dictator) only gives you power if people go along with it.
    Places like North Korea stay that way because it’s been that system for a long while. People higher up are happy with the status quo, certainly don’t want to risk their life to start a change. The average person probably doesn’t know much better. Those that do are probably afraid.
    I can’t think of any dictatorships/one-party systems that have come about as the result of a stable democracy disintegrating. They tend to be a popular driven revolution from some other system (absolute monarchy, control by foreign power) that was no better.
    Some have been democracies that were not stable and collapsed eg Uganda. But that already had very serious internal problems before control was passed from the British.

    One democracy that did fall into a civil war was ... the USA
    But hard to argue that was repressed people who needed to be armed to overthrow a bad govt - because the “govt” won the war and history paints them as not just the victorious side but the morally correct side.

  8. #1398
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,919
    Again. You guys ignore a key point about the US military.

    I'm done trying to explain it.

  9. #1399
    Dead Brand Ambassador dodint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    'Trep
    Posts
    2,924
    This thread is dedicated to ignoring just about all facets of our political process; no reason to stop now.

  10. #1400
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,975
    DN, I'm not that worried about it, that's why I don't own guns yet. However, I appreciate having this option just in case. We don't used to have to worry about electing somebody like Donald Trump with the electoral college system, but the unthinkable happened!

    Trust me, things will usually get worse over time.

    Regarding civil war, not sure had Lincoln lost, would he be painted as Hitler type? I kinda doubt it. His main thing was to preserve the union, how can that be construed as evil? History will have to be seriously twisted to make Lincoln look evil.

    But anyway, I do believe civil wars need to be fought without meddlers from the outside.

    It's quite possible 2A might end up causing another civil war, but I won't pick up arms to fight for 2A, my only condition for picking up arms to fight would be to fight the next evil hitler...

    The difficulty would be that will I be able to 'see' him in time... or hopefully I won't mistaken somebody to be hitler when he's not...

    Anyway, I think evil should be pretty clear... I will only act when it's clear to me I guess...
    Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; May 7th, 2018 at 11:25 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •