Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[PocketZeven]

You just stated EXACTLY why all these new laws will have a limited effect on the problem.
Their mental state and /or feeling of supporting a cause they feel is correct. The philly shootings also shows again criminals do not care about the laws. So the whole crying out for more regulations for the most part is not worth the efforts, but those that see that side of the issue and speak out are labeled as white supremacist or racist for their position even though their logic bears more of the realistic truth.

That is why I was advocating for a registry in conjunction in what danoff proposed. Every licenseholder should register their weapons both to their license and a federal registry. Failing to report a change in ownership of a gun is punishable especially when that weapon is used in a crime. Unless theft ofcourse is reported and investigated.

 

[BobK]

Every licenseholder should register their weapons both to their license and a federal registry.

Why? What would it accomplish?

Keep in mind that criminals would likely as not ignore registration requirements because they're, well, criminals.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why? What would it accomplish?

Keep in mind that criminals would likely as not ignore registration requirements because they're, well, criminals.

Correct. But one can more easily investigate the fraud when the origin of the weapon used in a crime can be tracked. Perhaps it was stolen or someone is illegally selling them. Also when a license has disproportionally amount of guns on them, this person could be put on a watchlist. Or if a licenseholder has disproportional weapons "stolen" or "lost" this person can also be put on a watchlist.

When pretty much every gun can only be purchased with a license and registered to that license, it would make fraud, illegal selling much harder. There will always be loopholes, but shouldnt there be an effort made to make it harder anyway? To obtain large amount of guns they would need a lot of people to legally obtain these guns and then illegally sell them, without alerting the authorities. Because of the disproportional purchase of a large amount of guns in a short time these people risk being watched or investigated on suspicion of illegal armssales. Much harder to do currently with so many differences between states.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Also when a license has disproportionally amount of guns on them,

And what would be considered an amount of firearms owned that would be considered too many and set off this person being placed on a watch list?
Why would your chosen amount of owned firearms be a relevant number to predict what a persons future actions may or may not be and why they deserved more scrutiny?

 

[PocketZeven]

And what would be considered an amount of firearms owned that would be considered too many and set off this person being placed on a watch list?
Why would your chosen amount of owned firearms be a relevant number to predict what a persons future actions may or may not be and why they deserved more scrutiny?

Dont know, perhaps above average? law enforcement can determine the amount. They are put on a watch list and not immediately searched. If an investigation concludes there is something wrong, they can ask a judge for a warrant to search. A law abiding citizen with a huge guncollection, wont have anything to worry about.

I was adressing the question of BobK on illegal armsdealing. None of what I said was adressing mass shootings or other shootings, that wasnt the question. But to answer your question, the registering in combination with the firearms license might help to early detect or prevent mass shootings.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I was reading through this article about how there is evidence that bicycle helmets can cause the wearer to increase risk tolerance even in situations where a helmet cannot fulfill its function. More generally, I think the paper is interested in how objects interact with the brain...which made me think about guns. I've read (admittedly anecdotal) of instances where people with concealed carry weapons will actually increase their exposure to bad neighborhoods, for no other reason than that they have a defense. The psychology must be similar.

I wonder what holding an AR15 with multiple military-style attachments on it does to the brain of the operator? I have fairly extensive experience with firearms of all types, and I have to say, it's not nothing. I would be really curious to see a similar study done (however impossible) on Counterstrike players who own/use guns in real life.

 

[Liquid]

Risk compensation is the phenomenon you are describing. It is why the safest place to put a big spike in every car is protruding from the steering wheel; everyone would be so careful.

I don't know enough about guns or gun ownership to speak about how it relates to the topic at hand though.

 

[Dotini]

I was reading through this article about how there is evidence that bicycle helmets can cause the wearer to increase risk tolerance even in situations where a helmet cannot fulfill its function. More generally, I think the paper is interested in how objects interact with the brain...which made me think about guns. I've read (admittedly anecdotal) of instances where people with concealed carry weapons will actually increase their exposure to bad neighborhoods, for no other reason than that they have a defense. The psychology must be similar.

I wonder what holding an AR15 with multiple military-style attachments on it does to the brain of the operator? I have fairly extensive experience with firearms of all types, and I have to say, it's not nothing. I would be really curious to see a similar study done (however impossible) on Counterstrike players who own/use guns in real life.

Good insights. I can say without reservation that watching movies like Bullit as a kid inspired fantasies in me that I now wish I hadn't later realized.

 

[PocketZeven]

Interesting video concerning gun licensing:

 

[Danoff]

Interesting video concerning gun licensing:

The two plots at the end of that video are super misleading because of the different timelines. One of them is charting across a time period where the entire country reduced violent crime across the board, and the other is plotting across a much shorter timeline in which a mild increase is more prevalent. They shouldn't be compared like that in the video.

Overall it's a good video. I don't like the idea that we can keep guns out of the hands of people that would misuse them. We can't. All we can do is take reasonable steps. But I do think that licensing is a more straightforward vehicle for background checks.

 

[PocketZeven]

The two plots at the end of that video are super misleading because of the different timelines. One of them is charting across a time period where the entire country reduced violent crime across the board, and the other is plotting across a much shorter timeline in which a mild increase is more prevalent. They shouldn't be compared like that in the video.

Overall it's a good video. I don't like the idea that we can keep guns out of the hands of people that would misuse them. We can't. All we can do is take reasonable steps. But I do think that licensing is a more straightforward vehicle for background checks.

About the history and interpretation of the 2nd amendment from the perspective of a lawyer:



I have tried to delve into the history of the 2nd amendment and Connor conclude that the intention of this amendment was to protect the individuals right to bear arms, but in context of a militia. Interestingly it’s only recently and importantly through the NRA we have this “modern” interpretation. How do you view this? Try to view it as unbiased as possible and analyze the sentence from the perspective of its time and era.

 

[Danoff]

About the history and interpretation of the 2nd amendment from the perspective of a lawyer:



I have tried to delve into the history of the 2nd amendment and Connor conclude that the intention of this amendment was to protect the individuals right to bear arms, but in context of a militia. Interestingly it’s only recently and importantly through the NRA we have this “modern” interpretation. How do you view this? Try to view it as unbiased as possible and analyze the sentence from the perspective of its time and era.

Read the majority D.C. vs. Heller opinion. It's not that hard a read, and it's free.

Edit:

He screws up bigtime in that video right near the end. He says that the Maine court ruled that tennants do not have a 2nd amendment right to have guns in their apartment.

Wrong! You're obviously not a very good lawyer buddy.

The 2nd amendment is not a limitation on landlords, it's a limitation on the government. Your 2nd amendment rights simply have nothing to do with a dispute with your landlord over your lease. It's a non-factor. It's kindof stunning to hear someone misrepresent their own case.


Edit:

Man, that guys is a huge tool.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The 2nd amendment is not a limitation on landlords, it's a limitation on the government. Your 2nd amendment rights simply have nothing to do with a dispute with your landlord over your lease. It's a non-factor. It's kindof stunning to hear someone misrepresent their own case.

I agree with you overall... but in law it must be possible for a landlord to ban particular items on their own property, even those in the ownership of the lessee? In the UK some prohibit cats, for example, or alcohol, or they prohibit activities like the consumption of cigarettes. Does the 2nd Amendment stretch to a landlord's right to ban borne arms on their property?

 

[Danoff]

I agree with you overall... but in law it must be possible for a landlord to ban particular items on their own property, even those in the ownership of the lessee? In the UK some prohibit cats, for example, or alcohol, or they prohibit activities like the consumption of cigarettes. Does the 2nd Amendment stretch to a landlord's right to ban borne arms on their property?

The 2nd amendment has no bearing on the landlord's contract rights, or the lessee's rights under the contract. The 2nd amendment is purely a restriction on what laws the US government can pass. A perfect parallel here would be someone claiming that GTPlanet is infringing their freedom of speech by not allowing them to post whatever vile stuff they want to post. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with GTPlanet, it's not a restriction on GTPlanet's policies, it's a restriction on government policy.

So the equivalent of what toolman said in the video above would be to say that you have no right to freedom of speech on GTPlanet. You do. The government cannot censor your speech on GTPlanet. Your 1st amendments right do not disappear when you're on GTPlanet. They just don't limit GTPlanet, they limit the government.

You do have a 2nd amendment right to have guns in your apartment. The government cannot make a law banning that (and in fact I think D.C. vs. Heller may have actually be a case involving an apartment). It's just that your 2nd amendment rights do not have anything to do with the lease you agree to with your landlord, which may preclude having guns in your apartment.


Edit:

Just to be clear, I realize that @TenEightyOne is not in the US. My "you" above was intended to read more like "one" or... a person in the US.

 

[Blood Eagle]

About the history and interpretation of the 2nd amendment from the perspective of a lawyer:

Not that it really matters but...

 

[TenEightyOne]

The 2nd amendment has no bearing on the landlord's contract rights, or the lessee's rights under the contract. The 2nd amendment is purely a restriction on what laws the US government can pass. A perfect parallel here would be someone claiming that GTPlanet is infringing their freedom of speech by not allowing them to post whatever vile stuff they want to post. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with GTPlanet, it's not a restriction on GTPlanet's policies, it's a restriction on government policy.

So the equivalent of what toolman said in the video above would be to say that you have no right to freedom of speech on GTPlanet. You do. The government cannot censor your speech on GTPlanet. Your 1st amendments right do not disappear when you're on GTPlanet. They just don't limit GTPlanet, they limit the government.

You do have a 2nd amendment right to have guns in your apartment. The government cannot make a law banning that (and in fact I think D.C. vs. Heller may have actually be a case involving an apartment). It's just that your 2nd amendment rights do not have anything to do with the lease you agree to with your landlord, which may preclude having guns in your apartment.

The way I see it is that you or I (I'm speaking through an American medium after all) have no first amendment right here, that belongs to @Jordan as the publisher of the site. He's free to say what he wants here and to not say things that he doesn't want to say. He's the final publisher of the content that we create through our posts, so he (obviously via a moderation team) is the final arbiter of speech and the policy thereof.

That's why I wondered if a property owner has the same way to restrict arms borne under the second amendment on their property as an expression of the amendment on their own actions in the same way that they can restrict the speech issued via their own property.

 

[Danoff]

The way I see it is that you or I (I'm speaking through an American medium after all) have no first amendment right here, that belongs to @Jordan as the publisher of the site. He's free to say what he wants here and to not say things that he doesn't want to say. He's the final publisher of the content that we create through our posts, so he (obviously via a moderation team) is the final arbiter of speech and the policy thereof.

But each member's 1st amendment rights and those of the owner do exist on GTPlanet. The government is not allowed to make a law which infringes freedom of speech on this website. 1st amendment rights here are the same as they are everywhere else in the country. There is absolutely nothing about them that changes or is suspended for this website. The 1st amendment says nothing about GTPlanet's policies or what speech it wants to host. It is silent in that regard.

Again, absolutely nothing about the nature of the 1st amendment changes, is suspended, ceases to exist, or is otherwise in any way influenced by GTPlanet's AUP.

That's why I wondered if a property owner has the same way to restrict arms borne under the second amendment on their property as an expression of the amendment on their own actions in the same way that they can restrict the speech issued via their own property.

As you can see from my examples, the 2nd amendment does not limit the property owner. The 2nd amendment doesn't change at all between being in a house, an apartment, on someone else's property, or in public. It is in no way changed, suspended, or otherwise influenced by a lease. The 2nd amendment is always a restriction on law. It is never a restriction on property owners.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But each member's 1st amendment rights and those of the owner do exist on GTPlanet. The government is not allowed to make a law which infringes freedom of speech on this website. 1st amendment rights here are the same as they are everywhere else in the country. There is absolutely nothing about them that changes or is suspended for this website. The 1st amendment says nothing about GTPlanet's policies or what speech it wants to host. It is silent in that regard.

The first amendment prevents a website's freedom of speech being violated by the government. That speech freedom is in the final speaker, in this case the owner of the website. The owner of that website is free to exercise prior restraint on his own speech, in this case speech which is issued as a result of user contributions on these pages. The first amendment doesn't need to mention every issue of speech in order for those speeches to be protected from interference and for them to be issued (or not issued, or modified) at the will of the speaker.

 

[Danoff]

The first amendment prevents a website's freedom of speech being violated by the government. That speech freedom is in the final speaker, in this case the owner of the website. The owner of that website is free to exercise prior restraint on his own speech, in this case speech which is issued as a result of user contributions on these pages. The first amendment doesn't need to mention every issue of speech in order for those speeches to be protected from interference and for them to be issued (or not issued, or modified) at the will of the speaker.

It's not one speaker in this case. The owner is not necessarily the same as the speaker. Take, for example, a journalist published in a newspaper. The newspaper owns the story, but it can very well be interpreted as the speech of the writer and the newspaper.

If the government made a law that said "Danoff is not allowed to talk about leapseconds anymore, because everyone is sick of that", then it may censor GTPlanet from allowing me to publish my work on leapseconds here. That law would infringe my freedom of speech as well as GTPlanet's.

Edit:

Actually on quick check of GTPlanet's documents I'm not sure that GTPlanet claims any ownership over posts. A lot of message boards simply require access to a non-exclusive license to the posted material.

If, at our request, you send certain specific submissions (for example contest entries) or without a request from us you send creative ideas, suggestions, proposals, plans, or other materials, whether online, by email, by postal mail, or otherwise (collectively, ‘comments’), you agree that we may, at any time, without restriction, edit, copy, publish, distribute, translate and otherwise use in any medium any comments that you forward to us. We are and shall be under no obligation (1) to maintain any comments in confidence; (2) to pay compensation for any comments; or (3) to respond to any comments.

We may, but have no obligation to, monitor, edit or remove content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these Terms of Service.

That looks like a non-exclusive license.

 

[PocketZeven]

The 2nd amendment has no bearing on the landlord's contract rights, or the lessee's rights under the contract. The 2nd amendment is purely a restriction on what laws the US government can pass. A perfect parallel here would be someone claiming that GTPlanet is infringing their freedom of speech by not allowing them to post whatever vile stuff they want to post. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with GTPlanet, it's not a restriction on GTPlanet's policies, it's a restriction on government policy.

So the equivalent of what toolman said in the video above would be to say that you have no right to freedom of speech on GTPlanet. You do. The government cannot censor your speech on GTPlanet. Your 1st amendments right do not disappear when you're on GTPlanet. They just don't limit GTPlanet, they limit the government.

You do have a 2nd amendment right to have guns in your apartment. The government cannot make a law banning that (and in fact I think D.C. vs. Heller may have actually be a case involving an apartment). It's just that your 2nd amendment rights do not have anything to do with the lease you agree to with your landlord, which may preclude having guns in your apartment.


Edit:

Just to be clear, I realize that @TenEightyOne is not in the US. My "you" above was intended to read more like "one" or... a person in the US.

You are missing the whole point that the current interpretation of the second amendment protecting individual rights, outside the context of a well regulated militia, is only recent. Arguably the right to own a gun is within context to within a " well-regulated" militia. In hindsight these key words left too much room for the NRA to misuse. In my current view one's individual rights to own a gun has no relation with the freedom and right to protect oneself. If you view the amendment within the context of its time, it was written to prevent the government of banning, prosecute state or local militia's and provide the right to protect themselves of violence from the government. There is nothing in there that even suggest the right to bear arms is to protect an individuals right to protect themselves. And even if you presume an individual can be seen as part of a state "militia" within their own home, the key is " well-regulated" which should be interpreted into modern times. In my opinion this means licensing and training.

Not that it really matters but...

View attachment 850383

Again the key is the current interpretation is something lobbied by the NRA. For centuries the right to bear arms was within context of a militia. Everytime the NRA and progun advocates quote the amendment, they omit the whole part concerning a well regulated militia.

 

[McLaren]

You are missing the whole point that the current interpretation of the second amendment protecting individual rights, outside the context of a well regulated militia, is only recent. Arguably the right to own a gun is within context to within a " well-regulated" militia. In hindsight these key words left too much room for the NRA to misuse. In my current view one's individual rights to own a gun has no relation with the freedom and right to protect oneself. If you view the amendment within the context of its time, it was written to prevent the government of banning, prosecute state or local militia's and provide the right to protect themselves of violence from the government. There is nothing in there that even suggest the right to bear arms is to protect an individuals right to protect themselves. And even if you presume an individual can be seen as part of a state "militia" within their own home, the key is " well-regulated" which should be interpreted into modern times. In my opinion this means licensing and training.



Again the key is the current interpretation is something lobbied by the NRA. For centuries the right to bear arms was within context of a militia. Everytime the NRA and progun advocates quote the amendment, they omit the whole part concerning a well regulated militia.

Already been argued in our courts.

One of the Second Amendment cases that the Court has heard, and until recently the only case challenging a congressional enactment, seemed to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. In United States v. Miller,307 U.S. 174 (1939). The defendants had been released on the basis of the trial court determination that prosecution would violate the Second Amendment and no briefs or other appearances were filed on their behalf; the Court acted on the basis of the government’s representations. ">4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.”307 U.S. at 178. ">5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”307 U.S. at 179. ">6 Therefore, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”307 U.S. at 178. In Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said, “Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the Federal Government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the “Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’ ”). See also Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment is a right held by states, not by private citizens), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996); United States v. Gomez, 92 F.3d 770, 775 n.7 (9th Cir. 1996) (interpreting federal prohibition on possession of firearm by a felon as having a justification defense “ensures that [the provision] does not collide with the Second Amendment”). United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007 (1997) (member of Georgia unorganized militia unable to establish that his possession of machine guns and pipe bombs bore any connection to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia). ">7

After that decision, Congress placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,Enacted measures include the Gun Control Act of 1968. 82 Stat. 226, E.g., NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, WORKING PAPERS 1031–1058 (1970), and FINAL REPORT 246–247 (1971). ">9 Miller, however, shed little light on the validity of such proposals. Pointing out that interest in the “character of the Second Amendment right has recently burgeoned,” Justice Thomas, concurring in the Court’s invalidation (on other grounds) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, questioned whether the Second Amendment bars federal regulation of gun sales, and suggested that the Court might determine “at some future date . . . whether Justice Story was correct . . . that the right to bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.’ ”Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937–39 (1997) (quoting 3 Commentaries § 1890, p. 746 (1833)). Justice Scalia, in extra-judicial writing, has sided with the individual rights interpretation of the Amendment. See ANTONIN SCALIA, A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION, FEDERAL COURTS AND THE LAW, 136–37 n.13 (A. Gutmann, ed., 1997) (responding to Professor Tribe’s critique of “my interpretation of the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the Federal Government will not interfere with the individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense”). ">10

It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment,E. Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y.U. L. Rev. 793 (1998); R. Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237 (2004); E. Volokh, “Necessary to the Security of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1 (2007); What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the 554 U.S. 570 (2008). ">12 confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment,The “right of the people,” for instance, was found in other places in the Constitution to speak to individual rights, not to collective rights (those that can only be exercised by participation in a corporate body). Id. at 578–80. ">13 an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts.Id. at 580–91. In so doing, the Heller Court rejected the argument that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected” by the Second Amendment, as the “traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense.” Id. at 624–25 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939)) (“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”); see also Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___, No. 14–10078, slip op. at 2 (2016) (vacating a ruling by a state court that a ban on stun guns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons were not “readily adaptable to use in the military.”). ">14 Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription.Heller, 554 U.S. at 594–96. Similarly, the phrase “security of a free state” was found to refer not to the defense of a particular state, but to the protection of the national polity. Id. at 596–98. ">15 Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2

Key decision here since your argument relies on "the context of its time".

The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment,The “right of the people,” for instance, was found in other places in the Constitution to speak to individual rights, not to collective rights (those that can only be exercised by participation in a corporate body). Id. at 578–80. ">13

If anything, your viewpoint arguing on the terms of a "militia" would actually support an AR15 being readily available above nearly all else. The sawed-off shotgun was banned because it served no effectiveness to the militia, where as the AR does "have reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia".

Therefore, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

 

[PocketZeven]

Already been argued in our courts. Part of how sawed-off shotguns ended up banned.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2

The current interpretation has only been around since 2008, it isnt something that progun claim as being what the founding fathers intended. Also nothing in that amendment suggests the right to bear arms as the right to protection. There is a individual right to keep and bear arms, but intended as protection to government tiranny, which arguably was a product of its time. Civil wars were much more commont then now. How I read it, it is the protection for the people of the USA to arm themselves in case of civil war. Clearly meant to prevent the government to disarm any oppositions or minorities when a civil war is brewing. And are militias necessary in modenr times for the security of the state?

 

[McLaren]

The current interpretation has only been around since 2008, it isnt something that progun claim as being what the founding fathers intended.

The current interpretation is because similar used phrases were found elsewhere in the Constitution regarding individual liberty, therefore, is where it's been argued they could have.

Also nothing in that amendment suggests the right to bear arms as the right to protection.

It's literally the definition.

The right to bear arms in English history is regarded in English law as a subordinate auxiliary right of the primary rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

There is a individual right to keep and bear arms, but intended as protection to government tiranny, which arguably was a product of its time. Civil wars were much more commont then now. How I read it, it is the protection for the people of the USA to arm themselves in case of civil war. Clearly meant to prevent the government to disarm any oppositions or minorities when a civil war is brewing. And are militias necessary in modenr times for the security of the state?

And you don't think the current Administration shows that the 2nd Amendment is now more relevant since its inception?

 

[Danoff]

You are missing the whole point that the current interpretation of the second amendment protecting individual rights, outside the context of a well regulated militia, is only recent. Arguably the right to own a gun is within context to within a " well-regulated" militia. In hindsight these key words left too much room for the NRA to misuse. In my current view one's individual rights to own a gun has no relation with the freedom and right to protect oneself. If you view the amendment within the context of its time, it was written to prevent the government of banning, prosecute state or local militia's and provide the right to protect themselves of violence from the government. There is nothing in there that even suggest the right to bear arms is to protect an individuals right to protect themselves. And even if you presume an individual can be seen as part of a state "militia" within their own home, the key is " well-regulated" which should be interpreted into modern times. In my opinion this means licensing and training.

Again the key is the current interpretation is something lobbied by the NRA. For centuries the right to bear arms was within context of a militia. Everytime the NRA and progun advocates quote the amendment, they omit the whole part concerning a well regulated militia.

You obviously have not read DC v Heller and are listening a little too carefully to that moron's speech. DC v Heller did not rewrite the 2nd amendment, it laid out reasons for the interpretation.

 

[PocketZeven]

You obviously have not read DC v Heller and are listening a little too carefully to that moron's speech. DC v Heller did not rewrite the 2nd amendment, it laid out reasons for the interpretation.

Calling him a moron is a bit harsh. It was the first time that individuals right to bear arms was defined at the supreme court. Before that the amendment was more often interpreted in context of a well regulated militia. You have to thanks the NRA for a large part of it.

 

[ryzno]

You have to thanks the NRA for a large part of it.

Large part of what? You actually think the NRA has influence over the Court?

 

[PocketZeven]

Large part of what? You actually think the NRA has influence over the Court?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/12/16418524/nra-second-amendment-guns-violence
The NRA created the conversation and narrative. Without it, the amendment would probably have kept the same interpretation it had in the decades/century before.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You obviously have not read DC v Heller and are listening a little too carefully to that moron's speech. DC v Heller did not rewrite the 2nd amendment, it laid out reasons for the interpretation.

Just curious here, but do you think the dissents in Heller are valid at all? Majority rules of course, and the practical outcome is self evident. But from my perspective I see Heller as 5 conservatives saying one thing and 4 progressives saying another. I don't think the result is an absolute truth, but rather the product of a perpetually see-sawing ideological divide.

 

[Danoff]

Calling him a moron is a bit harsh. It was the first time that individuals right to bear arms was defined at the supreme court. Before that the amendment was more often interpreted in context of a well regulated militia. You have to thanks the NRA for a large part of it.

Still haven't read it.

Just curious here, but do you think the dissents in Heller are valid at all

No, I don't. I read through the dissent as well and was unimpressed. Frankly, I haven't done it in years though, so if we're going to get into it I need to brush up.

 

[PocketZeven]

Still haven't read it.



No, I don't. I read through the dissent as well and was unimpressed. Frankly, I haven't done it in years though, so if we're going to get into it I need to brush up.

I read the summary. Individual gunrights is a recent phenomena and the NRA has a large part in creating the narrative that led to supreme court case.