BF2S Forums Second Amendment

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

And it is besides the point entirely anyway ...

I got the responce I was aiming for from Cybargs

So we have established that both Japan and the US have a violent history and that is one of the arguments used to defend US gun culture amongst others but still Japanese people doesn't gun down eachother in the same rate ... why is that?

Japanese mafia ... hm, better but still not valid ... the US also have mafia and in both countries they pretty much shoot eachother and not uninvolved people so that doesn't explain it either ...

Suicide rates in Japan are amongst the highest in the world, roughly 30.000 people in Japan does this every year ... but still that has little or nothing to do with the issue ...

So please try again Cybargs!

You can still argue that most gun crimes in the US are amongst gangs as well. Gangs will still exist in the US no matter what.

So we are to ignore the reasons for gangs to appear and ignore the reasons for them shooting eachother up, if that's your final stand on the issue I will return to my previous statement that the gunlaws or lack of such are in the best interest of keeping the poor "thugs" and latinos occupied shooting eachother ...

Reasons that they shoot each other are their own. There is no conspiracy that it is either the governments or the arms industries best interest to keep thugs shooting each other. It's just bad PR overall on business.

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So we are to ignore the reasons for gangs to appear and ignore the reasons for them shooting eachother up, if that's your final stand on the issue I will return to my previous statement that the gunlaws or lack of such are in the best interest of keeping the poor "thugs" and latinos occupied shooting eachother ...

Reasons that they shoot each other are their own. There is no conspiracy that it is either the governments or the arms industries best interest to keep thugs shooting each other. It's just bad PR overall on business.

Their own fault?



Never said it was a conspiracy either, but if guns killed many many many more white people it would have been a government issue wouldn't it? ... stop sucking so much US dick Cybargs, it doesn't become you tbh ...

It's still a pretty debated issue in the US. You cannot remove guns either way due to Second Amendment.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So we are to ignore the reasons for gangs to appear and ignore the reasons for them shooting eachother up, if that's your final stand on the issue I will return to my previous statement ...

Varegg wrote:

The lack of gun control in the US helps keeping the poor population at a lowest possible level since it's mainly black unemployed "thugs" and latinos that kill eachother, that the occasional white child blows his head off by accident is clearly worth the price ...

Now get the fuck off my lawn!

You can defend the criminals all you want by blaming their socioeconomic status on big bad guns.  I'll blame the enabling social programs and keep on defending myself and my family.

Could you please direct me to where I defend criminals?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Exact opposite actually. Crack shots, poorly trained and disciplined.

I think you're wrong I'm afraid:

The historian M. L. Brown states that while a few of these men mastered the difficult handling of a rifle, few became expert. Brown quotes the Continental Army soldier Benjamin Thompson, who expressed the 'common sentiment' at the time which was that minutemen were notorious poor marksmen with rifles:

    "Instead of being the best marksmen in the world and picking off every Regular that was to be seen...the continual firing which they kept up by the week and the month has had no other effect than to waste their ammunition and convince the King's troops that they are really not really so formidable."

Through the remainder of the revolution, militias moved to adopting the minuteman model for rapid mobilization. With this rapid mustering of forces, the militia proved its value by serving as augmentees to the continental army on a temporary basis occasionally leading to instances of numerical superiority. This was seen at the Battles of Hubbardston and Bennington in the north and at Camden and Cowpens in the south. Cowpens is notable in that Daniel Morgan used the militias strengths and weaknesses skillfully to attain the double-envelopment of Tarleton's forces.

The first says they couldn't shoot, but the second says they were nonetheless efficient and organised enough to achieve significant battlefield victories.

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The following is not indicative of my personal views on gun control.

“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 general populace is not a well regulated militia. To allow individuals to own guns doesn’t ensure “the security of a free State”; not now and arguably not when the Bill of Rights was formed. An armed, semi-civilian contingent could be necessary and effective in the maintenance of the security of relatively small areas of a nation, but there is still quite the logical leap to go from arming a militia and arming individual citizens.

My interpretation is that the police are the militia.  Secondly, people have the right to police themselves (aka their own neighborhoods and houses).  Meaning, individuals too.

This is based on what? Because I truly have no idea how you get that out of the Amendment or any other legal document.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

A gun in a household is useful for nothing more than self-defense situations. One gun in households everywhere is not going to win a revolution anymore against a tyrannical government, the technology and logistics of the age would undoubtedly require a hell of a lot more weaponry and infrastructure. Personal weapons spread throughout the population at any reasonable density are just not an effective weapon to aid or quell civil unrest. Even their use in against foreign threats on domestic soil would be limited if not counter-productive.

Disagree, on a few levels.  One gun in each household (for instance, I'd say 85% of my neighborhood has a gun).  I would imagine about half the neighborhood would react if threatened, plus unlike most neighborhoods, everyone knows everyone else - meaning, it would be easily organized.

Sure, not win a revolution, but definitely quell unrest.  Effective?  Partly.  Not as effective as tanks and jets of course.

More like a mob than an organized resistance. Chances any issue of any size is going to be a result of the people with guns being the unrest, not putting it down.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

- Wouldn’t weapons depots around the country controlled at the State level or lower be a more accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment?

Yes, but why not both?

I gave an argument for why the first fits with the Second Amendment. How is individual ownership justified?

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

- Should the Second Amendment be rewritten? Should it be to make guns for self-defense explicitly legal, to make individually owned civilian weapons illegal, or for some other purpose?

If you want to be anal, sure.  But not necessary.

"anal" is the definition of the Supreme Court. They can't (or shouldn't) be taking such a radical interpretation of the law that makes it completely different to what it was written as. If we value the ideals of private gun ownership, the laws should be changed to reflect that.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

"anal" is the definition of the Supreme Court. They can't (or shouldn't) be taking such a radical interpretation of the law that makes it completely different to what it was written as. If we value the ideals of private gun ownership, the laws should be changed to reflect that.

They don't just use the word or phrase as it was written in the document itself. When interpreting they use source material from the time period to get a better idea of the mindset of the framers.

I know. The point still stands. Militia means militia, to bear arms meant to use military force against some foe. I do not see how you can get individual weapon ownership out of that by necessity.

I forgot "and", killer contribution.

It doesn't make any sense then. The first part doesn't work as its own sentence.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29 wrote:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Well regulated means a quality militia. It has nothing to do with federal restrictions on firearms.

ruisleipa wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I know. The point still stands. Militia means militia, to bear arms meant to use military force against some foe. I do not see how you can get individual weapon ownership out of that by necessity.

yep.

It also said the Right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed... Go to page 2 for youtube explanation k.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

yep.

It also said the Right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed... Go to page 2 for youtube explanation k.

"to bear arms meant to use military force against some foe"

And how do you do that with out a gun?


And change the second amendment, now way.  You don't fuck with the Bill of Rights.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

"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."

Here's my take on it.

The part highlighted in cyan indicates a aside; a national idea. The part highlighted in yellow indicates the state that must exist before the first state is possible. I think that if the founding fathers meant that an armed populace should only consist of armed militia, it would have been worded as such.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

See, once you take out 'the People,' then it fits in more closely with some of the more outlandish firearms regulatory agendas.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-02-12 19:18:33)

jaymz9350 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

yep.

It also said the Right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed... Go to page 2 for youtube explanation k.

"to bear arms meant to use military force against some foe"

And how do you do that with out a gun?

As I have said, public weapons depots. Weapons don't have to be owned individually for them to be borne against some foe.

jaymz9350 wrote:

And change the second amendment, now way.  You don't fuck with the Bill of Rights.

It's stupid to support something just because of its status. Status has no bearing as to its quality.

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This is based on what? Because I truly have no idea how you get that out of the Amendment or any other legal document.

I'm saying the police are the general populace is a well regulated militia.  You are saying we currently do not have any standing militias, based on your post.  The police are citizens serving the public and not funded by the nation's coffers.  This is the same definition that was used during the revolutionary war.

Your first sentence doesn't make any sense and it's making it hard for me to decipher what you're saying.

The national guard pretty sufficiently covers the definition of standing militia.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

More like a mob than an organized resistance. Chances any issue of any size is going to be a result of the people with guns being the unrest, not putting it down.

What is the definition of a militia?  A semi-organized mob, no?  You are making a blanket statement about assuming that owing a gun will increase the chance of unrest.   I think the opposite.  We can go on about this, but its a fundamental difference in thinking.

Dictionary wrote:

militia: a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ … amp;ch=dic

Not a "semi-organized mob".

I didn't say anything about gun owners increasing the chance of unrest. I believe quite the opposite. What I am saying is when there is unrest, guns will likely escalate the situation. That is not necessarily a bad thing. To say they are the difference between a successful, moral insurrection or putting down an unjust mob however is a bit excessive.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

Pug wrote:

Yes, but why not both?

I gave an argument for why the first fits with the Second Amendment. How is individual ownership justified?

Because people have the right to defend property and family.  That is my argument for individual ownership.  Note the 2nd isn't limited to forming a mlitia, but its about the right to defend yourself.

You claim people have that right. I do not see where that is covered in the Second Amendment.

Pug wrote:

Also, assuming weapons depots will make it safer is incorrect.  It makes it harder to organize self defense.  Harder in my book means less effective.

By organize self-defense I assume you mean against a foreign power.

It would make it significantly easier to organize resistance. You can easily organize at the point of weapons distribution, immediately imposing a chain of command and a sense of unity. Expecting people to amorphously organize is to expect disaster.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

"anal" is the definition of the Supreme Court. They can't (or shouldn't) be taking such a radical interpretation of the law that makes it completely different to what it was written as. If we value the ideals of private gun ownership, the laws should be changed to reflect that.

Right, except maybe you can see some different interpretations of the terms based on my post here.  Radical?  Hardly...case law argues against most of what you've posted.

No, I really don't see any interpretations based on what you posted that come from the wording. Historically there are a lot of SC decisions that obviously deviate from the law as written, not all justices are constructionists.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The part highlighted in cyan indicates a aside; a national idea. The part highlighted in yellow indicates the state that must exist before the first state is possible. I think that if the founding fathers meant that an armed populace should only consist of armed militia, it would have been worded as such.

What if a Supreme Court decided that the first state did not necessarily entail individual gun ownership? It seems to me that it would be reasonable to say that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" extends only to the point that it is "necessary to the security of a free State".

For example by your line of thinking, you argue that every person being forced to own a gun would bring about a free state - but the initial condition is not necessary to bring about the second.

RAIMUS wrote:

Seriously, read the Heller decision!

The militia clause establishes a need, the independent clause protects the right.
The right is not dependent on the militia clause.
The right to self-defense is also protected.

Well that's a recent and extremely applicable decision haha.

wiki wrote:

* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning

I am still unsatisfied, particularly with the emphasized part.

I believe that the idea that the right to bear arms for self-defense in particular has been largely read into the Constitution, and that communal ownership is still ownership by the People. As to the second point my interpretation of the People could very well be incorrect as it is used elsewhere in the Constitution, but off the top of my head it seems to me that the right to gun ownership is the only right that has to do specifically with property law. You can't have something like free speech communally but not individually - you certainly can with weapons.