Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumHow would you rewrite the 2nd Amendment?
It is so out of date, it needs to be repealed and replaced by a new Constitutional amendment.
First I would remove any reference to militias. Next I would define what "arms" would be allowed to be "borne".
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... as it's perfectly clear and well defined by the court.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Appreciate the compliment
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It's just fine the way it is.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)
petronius
(26,602 posts)"Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned." (although I'd prefer "person" or "individual" rather than "citizen"
or North Dakota:
"All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness;
and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed."
or West Virginia:
"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."
or Delaware"
"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use." (although I'd rather it said "lawful" hunting like WV...)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
curlyred
(1,879 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)Many people will be killed unjustly by guns and ammo until then.
It took 58 years from Plessey to Brown.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)was the POINT of the whole thing. Which it is, to anyone not a) looking to profit from gun sales or b) hiding under the couch from imaginary enemies or 3) puffed up with imaginary importance. IMHO.
That was a time when the militia was not for defense against the government's force, it WAS the government's force. There was no standing army, there was the militia!
It cracks me up that teaparty "scholars" are CERTAIN that the Founders wanted to create a force intended to destroy--not protect--the government they had fought to create. Those same scholars seem to be certain that the Founders really intended to install a government based on the Articles of Confederation, which they tried and rejected.
And by the way, the reason the Constitution has held up so well for as long as it has? It's because it doesn't get SPECIFIC about, for example, what arms can be borne. Given that history's only constant is change.
So, I guess I disagree 100% with the poster. Shoot me. 
bubbayugga
(222 posts)or have you happily abrogated that duty to the large standing army that our forefathers were vehemently opposed to? And are we supposed to pretend like the right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist because you and others like you are unwilling to personally maintain the security of the free state? As if it were a free state anymore anyways.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Not trying to bust balls in any way shape or form...just very curious.
Would you prefer to muster?
Do you believe the constitutional militias ARE necessary for security?
Would you prefer there was not a large army and kick-ass Navy, or feel they are much more necessary then the militia?
Do you think the members of the 1st&2nd congress would happily give up any security for their own right to keep & bear arms...they being exempt from militia service?
bubbayugga
(222 posts)and I feel as if I have done my duty. Despite that, would I muster? Maybe. However, I'm approaching the age where I would be exempt anyways and, having already served my eight years, I feel that's fair. Having said that, there are circumstances which would compel me to muster or possibly reenlist but they are extreme circumstances and, as the years pass by, I'm not sure the military would even have use of me.
Do you believe the constitutional militias ARE necessary for security?
They provide balance as does the second amendment. Balance is necessary for the security of a free state. An imbalance of power inevitably leads to an unfree state. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Do you think the members of the 1st&2nd congress would happily give up any security for their own right to keep & bear arms...they being exempt from militia service?
I think they struggled with this issue just as we do but I think the VAST majority of our forefathers agreed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right and was necessary to prevent a tyranny from evolving out of the constitutional republic that they created. Members of the first and second congress fought a bloody revolution for our bill of rights by the way. They were hardly exempt from the blood and the mud of militia service and I truly believe that they intended for individual Americans to protect and defend the constitution they gave us by any and all means necessary including taking up arms against a government that over stepped the bounds outlined by the constitution.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)My point was that we have it (wildly bloated as it is), and the National Guard, and police forces, sheriffs' departments, state police etc etc etc so why do we absolutely require armed citizens? So they can all shoot at each other? Because freedom? I'd rather be free not to get shot by a neighbor over a shrubbery.
bubbayugga
(222 posts)Don't worry, you're far more likely to get shot by a junkie trying to pay for his next fix. If you're truly worried about being shot by your neighbor over a shrubbery, perhaps you shouldn't own any firearms. My point is that you have no room to complain about the MIC so long as you hide behind it. Furthermore, the presence of this enormous MIC is not a reason for good citizens to abandon their arms and their sense of personal civic duty. It is, in fact, the very reason why they should not. What's more, our forefathers always supported the right of carrying arms for personal defense. How can a state be free if bandits are given license to rape, murder, and pillage the citizens of the state with impunity? The more you try to disarm us, the more evident it becomes that we should not allow you to do so.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)But OK, if you want to go there: are you seriously suggesting that a bunch of citizens drilling with their guns would be just as good as the modern military? That they will be able to fly the planes, man the radar, pilot the submarines, maintain the nuclear weapons etc etc etc.? Is that what you would prefer to go back to? If not, what on you on about?
Take your straw man arguments, overblown fears, puffed-up ego and gun fetishism somewhere else.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Stated interest in that right, as outlined in the Articles. That interest does not infringe on that right, nor is that right "community-based" anymore than the other rights in the BOR. If the Framers wanted only to organize a militia, why would they even write an amendment about the right to keep & bear arms?
Clearly, the Second was written in to assure that right was protected just as the other rights were protected.
BTW, this is an open group. We don't follow anyone's orders about going elsewhere.
bubbayugga
(222 posts)How jingoist of you. You would make a neo-con proud. You're the only one talking about the Navy and the Air Force btw. I'm talking about the large standing "ARMY". there's a difference.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)The Navy and Air Force aren't a part of the MIC? So you just want to get rid of the ground forces, except of course the Marines? Is that the plan? What about the National Guard? What about the police forces? You know, the ones that protect us from the "bandits" who would otherwise be "given license to rape, murder and pillage"? I'd guess from that you'd prefer vigilante justice to law and order. Good to know.
And BTW, this statement of yours is a real head scratcher: "If you are truly worried about being shot by your neighbor over a shrubbery, perhaps you shouldn't own any firearms." Dude. My concern is not that I will shoot myself with my own gun (although so many do). My concern is that my neighbor will shoot me with his. Over a shrubbery (as happened a few days ago in Orlando). Or because he doesn't like my choice in music. Or because I happen to be in a movie theater, or talking to a congresscritter, or at a school.
I've known three murder victims in my life. One evening a whackjob came to our little town and started shooting random people on the street. Two were killed; one was a friend of mine. The shooter fled the scene and was caught some miles away by law enforcement. Some years later a coworker and his wife (both friends) were shot by their 16-year-old daughter because they didn't like her 23-year-old boyfriend. Tell me, exactly how would these people have been saved or defended by some stalwart like you? Or how would they have saved themselves?
P.S. I don't think you understand the definitions of either "jingoist" or neo-con. Do we have the Greatest Military in the World? Or at least the Biggest? Yup. Is it--IMHO--as useless as tits on a boar, in terms of defending us, our freedom, as opposed to the freedom of multinational corporations to do as they please? Yup. Is it going anywhere anytime soon? No. Not while we can't find politicians who are willing to cut even 5% of the projected increase of the most bloated budget in the history of the planet. You can bewail that all you like, I certainly do. But that's a fact. And if you think you and your friends are going to change that with your AKs...hah.
bubbayugga
(222 posts)Like the ones that protected your friend on the street that was shot by the whack job? Or the ones that protected your coworkers from their crazed daughter?
Dude. My concern is not that I will shoot myself with my own gun (although so many do). My concern is that my neighbor will shoot me with his
I understood that the first time. The fact is, you are more likely to be shot by a lightning bolt from heaven than by your neighbor over a shrubbery. Your fear is completely irrational. More importantly, you are more likely to be shot by a drug addict trying to raise cash for their dealer. If you would prefer to use the aforementioned "police forces" as your first line of defense, that's your perogative and I won't deny you that right but, given their track record of actually preventing murder, I would just ask that you not seek to deprive me of my right to choose a concealed weapon as my first line of defense.
The Navy and Air Force aren't a part of the MIC?
they don't represent the same threat to liberty as a large standing Army, quartered within the boundaries of our nation during a time of relative peace. If congress declares war, as in WW2, then by all means, raise the Army. But until then, it isn't really necessary. My point is that you can't bemoan the MIC while hiding behind it. Beyond that, our forefathers intended for us to have arms for personal defense as well as national defense so it is kind of a moot point as far as nullifying the second amendment.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)What about the police forces? What EXACTLY do you expect police forces to do when whack jobs and crazed daughters have access to guns? Apparently, you think they should be monitoring everyone, in order to stop Bad Things from happening. Because Freedumb. See, the problem with free societies is that people are free to do bad shit and you have to wait until they do something you can lock them up for. And the idea that you can prevent random bad shit with your concealed weapon is asinine, the product of an over-inflated sense of importance. Get over it.
As for my "irrational fears". Let's look at yours, shall we? Coked-up druggies and (apparently) invading furriners and tyrannical government forces are what we should really be concerned about? And so you need not only a gun but a concealed weapon as your first line of defense. Uh huh. You'd never, like, miss the bad guy and accidentally hurt or kill someone else now would you? Nahgahappen. And BTW, the violent crime rate has dropped by nearly 50% since the early nineties but you'd never know that, would you? After all, the teevee only shows the latest disaster / violence porn. You should try getting out a little more. When you do you will find that the big bad world is not nearly as dangerous as you fear.
The Navy and the Air Force aren't part of the MIC. That is the stupidest thing I have heard this year, by a mile, and probably tops the charts for several years running. For starters, the Christianists rampant in the AF are a major threat on their own. But really, since that's the depth of understanding you possess, there is no point in even trying to communicate with you. It is wasted breath, and another 10 minutes I'll never get back. And--or course!--you never answered my question about vigilantism.
You don't need to. Fuck the NRA, and its apologists.
bubbayugga
(222 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2013, 06:15 AM - Edit history (1)
What about the police forces? What EXACTLY do you expect police forces to do when whack jobs and crazed daughters have access to guns?I expect them to fill out their report and move on to the next case which is why I would prefer to just defend myself. maybe I still get killed. maybe I don't. my chances are still better than depending on the police or the asinine ideals of people like you.
the idea that you can prevent random bad shit with your concealed weapon is asinine, the product of an over-inflated sense of importance. Get over it.
You're not only being ignorant, you're being rude. Have I been rude to you? No. Try to return the favor or just refrain from further dialectic. At no point did I ever imply that I intended to prevent random bad shit from happening. I merely suggsested that I would prefer to rely on my concealed handgun to prevent random thugs from doing bad shit to me. And before you go on about how ridiculous that is, I have succesfully used my concealed handgun to prevent random bad shit from happening to me and my wife.
You'd never, like, miss the bad guy and accidentally hurt or kill someone else now would you?
After 8 years in the infantry and a lifetime of firearms training and experience, I can tell you that I'm about as likely to miss as your average LEO which is to say, not very likely.
the problem with free societies is that people are free to do bad shit
People are free to do bad shit in unfree societies too. the difference here is that we have the freedom to defend ourselves against those individuals. You are free to die like cowaring dog in the street to if that is your desire. I won't deny you that freedom.
Coked-up druggies and (apparently) invading furriners and tyrannical government forces are what we should really be concerned about?
I don't know where you live but where I live, violent crime is common. Lucky for you if that isn't your reality. Fact of the matter is, my state government says I can carry a concealed handgun and I can shoot someone dead if I feel like I'm in danger of being killed or sustaining grave bodily injury and I assure you , if I ever feel that way, that's exactly what I will do.
the violent crime rate has dropped by nearly 50% since the early nineties but you'd never know that
Interestingly enough, the incidence of concealed handgun carriers has doubled in that same time but you'd never know that.
The Navy and the Air Force aren't part of the MIC.
Never said that. I said they weren't a threat to liberty the way a "large standing army quartered within our borders during a time of relative peace" is.
And--or course!--you never answered my question about vigilantism.....I'd guess from that you'd prefer vigilante justice to law and order.
I guess you would rather wait for the police so they can fill out their reports describing the nature of your death. I would prefer they fill out a report describing the nature of my justifiable homicide.
Fuck the NRA, and its apologists.
Emotional, rude, belligerent, condescending, and insulting. typical gun grabber. Hopefully we're done here.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Since the militia, as a military force authorized by and part of the government, would not need an amendment to have arms to issue to its members.
CobblePuller
(38 posts)That won't be a pretzel, it'll be a Klein Bottle.
spin
(17,493 posts)Would you insist that only traditional appearing rifles could be owned or would you allow synthetic stocks?
Would you allow semi-automatic rifles? Bolt action rifles with a capacity of more than one round? Lever action rifles? Shotguns that hold more than two rounds?
If you did allow semi-automatic rifles, would you allow detachable magazines?
What about pistols and revolvers?
I am just curious about the limits you would set. I have no problem with however you decide to answer my questions.
It could be argued that our Constitution badly needs to be rewritten. I fear if we tried we would end up with a document at least 100,000 pages long. The founders had the ability to be pithy but sometimes they were a little too pithy. Today we have the opposite problem.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)But actually I don't disagree. I just think our "types" should be limited to accurate hunting arms, and whatever is deemed appropriate for dailyl possession by a patrol officer or in their car.
lastlib
(23,226 posts)"The United States, and every State and territory thereof, shall have the power to regulate or prohibit any firearm, or any part thereof; but no State shall enact any law that supersedes or contravenes any law of the United States."
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)then ask that question. Apples and oranges.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)The pen is not mightier than the sword?
and right wing hate mongering has zero effect?
could you at least try and be consistant?
tblue
(16,350 posts)Be serious.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)I am really tired of the it's different because its dangerous line of reasoning.
Yank it. I have no problem with repealing it just as you say. Then, maybe, gradually we can allow gun ownership on a strictly closely regulated basis. Or else, just have guns available for checking out for a few days like library books. No one owns a gun but they have the right to 'bear' one with all due oversight. Safely first. Children first. Life first. Get our priorities straight.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)Just read what it actually says in its proper historical context.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)he was writing it for the present, until it was preempted.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)They mixed up militias and personal use from the beginning. We need an amendment that defines personal use without the "defense of the state" part.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The states & federal government have laws sufficient to define illegality, and few Americans are demanding that they have anything more than semi-auto arms, a century+ old technology.
CobblePuller
(38 posts)hansberrym
(1,571 posts)The historical record shows that the understandong of the RKBA was that each person has the right to defend himself and his property, as well to defend the state.
The AWB seeks to separate the right of self defense from the great political right (Aymette v. Tenn.) to defend the state. The argument that citizens ought not have military style arms is contradicted by court opinions such as US v. Miller in which the arms that were protected were those arms which could contribute to the common defense or which were part of the ordinary militiary equipment.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)The various states will have the right to raise individual militias to protect against internal emergencies and to aid in national defense.
Therefore the rights of the people to own individual arms in that cause will not be infringed except by legislative action.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)That each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same.
Bazinga
(331 posts)would that preclude any and all possibility of armed self-defense? Or would it simply mean that the weapons would be limited to some short- list of approved weapons, presumably those with no military features ( however they may be defined)?
eta: And also presumably, limited to some short-list of approved people.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)The exercise of the right to own a weapon (arms) dominates the rights of others in their pursuit of liberty and to be safe. If they choose, those with guns can kill, threaten and take the property of those without guns because of the power they hold in their hands granted to them by the 2nd amendment. One would need to define what "bearing arms" means.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The exercise of the right to own a weapon (arms) enforces the rights of people in their pursuit of liberty and to be safe. If they choose, those with or without guns can kill, threaten and take the property of those without guns because of physical strength, numbers, skill with melee weapons they hold in their hands granted to them by politicians who think being a victim is better than defending yourself.
http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-forum/2012/03/dc-deputy-mayor-dear-victims-of-crime-better-you-are-beaten-raped-stolen-from-than-you-protect-yourself/
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)grantor of the weapons. We disagree.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)infringing on, limiting or abridging the right of the People to keep and bear arms.
Ought to shut up those "you gotta be in the militia" whiners.
