New normal?

[Spider-Dan]

Spider, you always leave this section out when you quote the amendment,  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think there are enough "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" bumper stickers on the roads to be reasonably certain that everyone is familiar with that part of the text.

Nevertheless, I will happily affirm that the right of people in a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."  The problem is that the people who are fond of citing the "infringed" part always seem to believe the "well-regulated militia" part either doesn't exist, or is completely meaningless.

[CF DolFan]

We have a dumb idea that owning an unlimited amount of guns is a birth-right in this country.  That's just dumb.

Every citizen is not, by default of their being born here, capable or responsible or sane enough to be given that right.  So long as we have this mindset, we will continue to have this problem.

I don't mind an armed public, but the onus should be on the individual to earn that right, like with many other things.  Even then, there would still be incidents, but way fewer.

I really am not sure what you are referring to. What rights are earned?

1 Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2 Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
3 No quartering of soldiers.
4 Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5 Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6 Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7 Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8 Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9 Other rights of the people not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
10 Powers reserved to the states.

Freedom of speech is a right and should never have to be earned. Something like a drivers license is a privilege so it has to be earned and paid for.

[Spider-Dan]

But even those rights are not absolute.

Your right to free speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, nor does it include incitement to violence or making threats to the President.  The rights of due process and a speedy trial do not apply to "enemy combatants," even if they are American citizens (not that the Constitution makes a distinction for citizens).

[pondwater]

But even those rights are not absolute.

Your right to free speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, nor does it include incitement to violence or making threats to the President.  The rights of due process and a speedy trial do not apply to "enemy combatants," even if they are American citizens (not that the Constitution makes a distinction for citizens).

Nor does your right to bear arms include shooting people without a legitimate reason.

[Phishfan]

I think there are enough "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" bumper stickers on the roads to be reasonably certain that everyone is familiar with that part of the text.

Nevertheless, I will happily affirm that the right of people in a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."  The problem is that the people who are fond of citing the "infringed" part always seem to believe the "well-regulated militia" part either doesn't exist, or is completely meaningless.

Or they have a different view of who should regulate it. Not that I buy into their thinking,  but you are only considering government regulations. Modern militia men believe they are a viable alternative and have the freedom of self regulations. Many of those you oppose feel they read it the same way you are asking them to.

[Spider-Dan]

You're right: I do not recognize the concept of "self regulated" as a legitimate interpretation of "well-regulated" in the context of government legislation, which is what the 2nd Amendment is.  The very concept basically makes the term "well-regulated" meaningless; literally every action that any individual voluntarily takes is already "self regulated."  I cannot think of any scenario in which "self regulated" activity does not precisely resemble unregulated activity.

Which brings me back to the point I just made: everyone who is fond of citing "shall NOT be infringed" always seems to interpret "well-regulated militia" in a way that renders it meaningless (or they just ignore it altogether).

[pondwater]

Which brings me back to the point I just made: everyone who is fond of citing "shall NOT be infringed" always seems to interpret "well-regulated militia" in a way that renders it meaningless (or they just ignore it altogether).

Seems to me you're arguing with yourself at this point since you seem to be ignoring that the courts have already settled this issue.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.”

Furthermore, even more importantly the SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

So what was your argument again?

[CF DolFan]

But even those rights are not absolute.

Your right to free speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, nor does it include incitement to violence or making threats to the President.  The rights of due process and a speedy trial do not apply to "enemy combatants," even if they are American citizens (not that the Constitution makes a distinction for citizens).

Dave said the "rights" of  the second amendment should be earned. That's a completely different narrative. There are plenty of regulations of where and how I can use my 2nd amendment rights but they do not keep me from having my 2nd amendment rights.

Which brings me back to the point I just made: everyone who is fond of citing "shall NOT be infringed" always seems to interpret "well-regulated militia" in a way that renders it meaningless (or they just ignore it altogether).

Seems pretty obvious but please let me allow liberal comedians/magicians Penn & Teller explain the second amendment to you.  Warning ... NSFW

Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment to The United States Constitution

https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ



The biggest question from a pro second amendment side seems to be .... when the hijacking of planes caused disaster in the US we took immediate action to protect flights. Since then no US plane has been hijacked and used for destruction. Why then ... after numerous school shootings do Democrats refuse to use that same protection for our schools? I'll say this just as we were taught about public safety in my business ... the answer better not be money because 1 life is worth more. 

 

[Fau Teixeira]

I agree with CF, the 2nd amendment is fairly explicit.

there is an individual right to own arms and there's no need to earn that right.

There are limits however, and those limits aren't enumerated in the 2nd amendment. People don't have the right to own a  tank. Even tho if you look at the meaning behind the amendment. I would say that firing a rifle from horseback (the 18th century equivalent) is probably covered in the amendment. Also whether or not the 2nd amendment applies to cannons is a decent question.

I think in the end, it doesn't supersede common sense. If the government were to pass legislation that says only front loading single shot weapons are allowed for public ownership, i'm having a hard time seeing where that could be overturned from a constitutional perspective.

[Phishfan]

Why then ... after numerous school shootings do Democrats refuse to use that same protection for our schools? I'll say this just as we were taught about public safety in my business ... the answer better not be money because 1 life is worth more. 

 

Are you seriously going to say it is only Democrats? My experience is that local government responsible for schools are heavily Republican leaning. I know it is different everywhere but in the counties I have lived it has been more conservative.

[DaLittle B]

Here in the land of God,Guns,and Country (in that order) Where you have more freedoms owning your gun that you do your car,house,or dog  ...The good news is today is the last day of school here in town! so the next school incident involving guns,will probably have to wait till the fall....The last couple of weeks a high school kid bring a loaded gun to school,and lock down because of Gunfire all around an elementary school...

[CF DolFan]

Are you seriously going to say it is only Democrats? My experience is that local government responsible for schools are heavily Republican leaning. I know it is different everywhere but in the counties I have lived it has been more conservative.

I don't disagree with that but this needs to come from the top down. Most local governments have no way to generate the money needed. It needs to come from the guys who print their own.

The problems with the spineless Republicans in office is that there is still a decent percent who will side with the Democrats because of all the fear mongering going on. Without Democratic support the Republicans have no chance... and none of them want Trump to be involved with anything positive.   

Here in the land of God,Guns,and Country (in that order) Where you have more freedoms owning your gun that you do your car,house,or dog  ...The good news is today is the last day of school here in town! so the next school incident involving guns,will probably have to wait till the fall....The last couple of weeks a high school kid bring a loaded gun to school,and lock down because of Gunfire all around an elementary school...

A few years ago ... I was having lunch with my wife and in-laws and our kids went into lock down at their school. There were reports of an active shooter. One of my kids was locked in a closet with bunch of her classmates and the other barricaded in the corner of their classroom. There is no way to explain how terrifying their texts to us were or how scared everyone was. It was a horrible couple of hours that you can't really understand until you go through it. I can't imagine how bad it is at a school that has an actual shooting. Fortunately in this case the kid who made the prank call was caught and dealt with.

[Spider-Dan]

Seems to me you're arguing with yourself at this point since you seem to be ignoring that the courts have already settled this issue.

I think you and I have a very different idea of what "settled" means, since the National Firearms Act was not ruled unconstitutional in the same decision you are citing.  But let's not get sidetracked.

I don't dispute what the current state of law is.  But that's not what we are discussing, is it?  We don't need a 20-page-long thread to debate the existing state of affairs.  The question at hand is whether changes can be made to the status quo.  New gun laws can be passed, and they don't require a constitutional amendment to do so; all that they require is a SCOTUS that is willing to return to the same interpretation in place for the first ~200 years of the 2nd Amendment's existence.

So, what is my argument?  My argument is that, with sufficient political will, gun ownership can be drastically curtailed in this country (and I do mean drastically, as in obtaining a fully-automatic firearm made after 1986 drastically), and it can happen with as little as one retirement on the Supreme Court.

[Spider-Dan]

Seems pretty obvious but please let me allow liberal comedians/magicians Penn & Teller explain the second amendment to you.

Penn & Teller are libertarians, not liberals.  Those are not remotely the same thing.  Just ask them how they feel about taxes.

And as I predicted would be the case: "well-regulated militia" is always interpreted in a way that renders it meaningless.  According to P&T, it's just flavor text that has no impact whatsoever on judicial interpretation of the law.

[Dave Gray]

Dave said the "rights" of  the second amendment should be earned. That's a completely different narrative. There are plenty of regulations of where and how I can use my 2nd amendment rights but they do not keep me from having my 2nd amendment rights.

That's kinda what I'm saying.  It shouldn't be a right given to everyone.  It should be something limited, vigorously tested for, applied for, etc.  Some people are born crazy and unstable, even if they have yet to act out as a criminal.  Those people shouldn't have a right to own a weapon just because they were born on this dirt.

These are not laws of nature; they are laws of men.  They should be changed.  A fundamental right for all citizens to own an unlimited amount of firearms is dumb, IMO.