Sparks gets the start

[bustaheims]

Isn't the full 2nd Amendment that they have the right to bear arms as a member of a free standing army?  They always conveniently forget that second part.

The exact text reads as such:

"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."

So, being part of a free standing army is not a requirement, but it is certainly the justification for the clause itself.

 

[Bender]

It's an amendment. Just amend the damn thing

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Everytime something like this happens I eventually find myself watching Jim Jefferies' take on gun control in the US, so unfortunately I've watched this far too many times (warning for language & stuff):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

 

[Chris]

I'm a U.S. citizen (NY). I've been having the gun debate with some members of another (primarily U.S. member) forum and some of the arguments I've seen against any changes in guns laws are both...laughable and downright scary. For instance, did you know that if we're going to make some (and note I say some, not all) guns illegal, or even place tighter restrictions on their purchase, we have to also make cars illegal because thousands of people are killed by them each year. Oh, and swimming pools too, they are dangerous and people die in them every year. It's absolutely ridiculous the lengths some of these people go to in order to defend their "right" to own any kind of weapon.

I'd love to move to Canada. The only problem, as I get older I get less tolerant of cold weather. NY is already too cold for me...

 

[Captain Canuck]

I don't want to wade too much into this topic, just want to say:

1) Sparks is the man!

2) Never understood why some Americans think the 2nd Amendment gives them free range on automatic and assault type weapons when it was written in the time of powder muskets?

 

[bustaheims]

I'm a U.S. citizen (NY). I've been having the gun debate with some members of another (primarily U.S. member) forum and some of the arguments I've seen against any changes in guns laws are both...laughable and downright scary. For instance, did you know that if we're going to make some (and note I say some, not all) guns illegal, or even place tighter restrictions on their purchase, we have to also make cars illegal because thousands of people are killed by them each year. Oh, and swimming pools too, they are dangerous and people die in them every year. It's absolutely ridiculous the lengths some of these people go to in order to defend their "right" to own any kind of weapon.

I'd love to move to Canada. The only problem, as I get older I get less tolerant of cold weather. NY is already too cold for me...

Ahh, yes, the mental gymnastics that allows them to equate things with purposes that aren't related to death to something that is designed with the specific purpose of being able to kill something.

 

[ZBBM]

Isn't the full 2nd Amendment that they have the right to bear arms as a member of a free standing army?  They always conveniently forget that second part.

The exact text reads as such:

"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."

So, being part of a free standing army is not a requirement, but it is certainly the justification for the clause itself.

The most recent Supreme Court ruling justifying virtually unlimited gun ownership is based on an almost illiterate understanding of this sentence.  The Founders meant that citizens have the right to bear arms so that they would be able to be called into a militia (a well-regulated one, not just a rabble self-proclaimed by yahoos) to defend the country.  They should not, on any plain reading of this amendment, have the right to bear arms for any other purpose.  But thanks to the right-wingers on the court (farewell, Scalia), we have the mess we have now.

 

[L K]

It's always amused me when I hear the argument about "the people" being able to rise up and be a militia if the government tries to take over.  If the government ever attempted that it would be with the military behind them and I'm pretty sure that a trained military wouldn't have much trouble outgunning Wayne LaPierre.

 

[TBLeafer]

I think the 2nd amendment is outdated.

Just a little.

When it was created, there was no such thing as an assault rifle.

To make military grade weapons a business for the open market and offered to the general public is beyond stupid.

 

[rdowdall]

It's always amused me when I hear the argument about "the people" being able to rise up and be a militia if the government tries to take over.  If the government ever attempted that it would be with the military behind them and I'm pretty sure that a trained military wouldn't have much trouble outgunning Wayne LaPierre.

True, but at the time when this was coming about, the difference between a trained militia and normal person wasn't that great.  At the time it may have made sense, now it's just an outdated law.  Problem is that when someone is given something it is very hard to take it away from them. 

 

[Kin]

The most recent Supreme Court ruling justifying virtually unlimited gun ownership is based on an almost illiterate understanding of this sentence.  The Founders meant that citizens have the right to bear arms so that they would be able to be called into a militia (a well-regulated one, not just a rabble self-proclaimed by yahoos) to defend the country.  They should not, on any plain reading of this amendment, have the right to bear arms for any other purpose.  But thanks to the right-wingers on the court (farewell, Scalia), we have the mess we have now.

Just for a little opinion, I wrote my senior thesis on the Federalist Papers and I think one of the most common mistakes people make is saying "what the founders said" or what they meant as if they were a monolithic group is at the root of a lot of misunderstandings and misreadings of things. Like everything, the Constitution was a compromise between some wildly disparate groups and opinions on any subject were likely to be divided.

Keep in mind, as a popular musical these days reminds us, those guys disagreed to the point of shooting each other from time to time.

As a general rule I think the way the court has consistently interpreted the 2nd amendment has been correct. One thing I am comfortable saying about those guys is they didn't write flowery just to be pretty. If they'd wanted to say "You have the right to join a militia" or "You have the right to own a firearm for the express purpose of joining a militia" they'd have written that.

Which isn't to say I think the 2nd amendment is a good law in the modern world, just that its change should come via a Constitutional Amendment rather than a court ruling.

 

[Highlander]

It's always amused me when I hear the argument about "the people" being able to rise up and be a militia if the government tries to take over.  If the government ever attempted that it would be with the military behind them and I'm pretty sure that a trained military wouldn't have much trouble outgunning Wayne LaPierre.

I believe Thomas Jefferson said there should be a revolution in the States every 30 years (or something like that).

 

[Al14]

It's always amused me when I hear the argument about "the people" being able to rise up and be a militia if the government tries to take over.  If the government ever attempted that it would be with the military behind them and I'm pretty sure that a trained military wouldn't have much trouble outgunning Wayne LaPierre.

I believe Thomas Jefferson said there should be a revolution in the States every 30 years (or something like that).

Should Donald Trump become President, there just might be another revolution in 2017!  ;D