Gun control is coming

[DeadHeadX]

Did I ?

being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did they mean "free state" as in state of being or a free state as in, colliding two words together in a thundering blast of oxymoron,
free and then state ?

The existence of freedom is subjagated by a state therefore either the founding fathers were ignorant, or meant
"state of being", right?

Yes, sir. You’re still leaving it out. People with more letters before their name than I have can parse the words. They’ve been doing it for centuries now, but the full quote is “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.” Well regulated. That’s an important part that gets overlooked. Any attempt at “regulation” is repeatedly mislabeled as “liberals want to take your guns”. That’s just another of those fictions/myths that conservatives repeat till they get all hot in the pants.

 

[cannabineer]

Yes, sir. You’re still leaving it out. People with more letters before their name than I have can parse the words. They’ve been doing it for centuries now, but the full quote is “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.” Well regulated. That’s an important part that gets overlooked. Any attempt at “regulation” is repeatedly mislabeled as “liberals want to take your guns”. That’s just another of those fictions/myths that conservatives repeat till they get all hot in the pants.

There are some who credibly argue that in the 18th century “well-regulated” meant “proficient”, and that the modern meaning of “correctly constrained by law” is a projection. I hesitate to say this here because I do not support the other guy’s broken logic. But imho the jurisprudence on this is not a slam-dunk.

A corollary is that since the Second is eighteenth-century law, writing laws limiting its application is proper. I think Constitutional originalism is on the same thin ice as any other doctrine of infallible scripture.

So, while I generally align with what you’re saying, quoting “well-regulated” that way is not really a serviceable argument.

e. g. a timepiece with a sound mechanism that was adjusted as necessary to keep good time was considered well-regulated.

 

[DeadHeadX]

There are some who credibly argue that in the 18th century “well-regulated” meant “proficient”, and that the modern meaning of “correctly constrained by law” is a projection. I hesitate to say this here because I do not support the other guy’s broken logic. But imho the jurisprudence on this is not a slam-dunk.

A corollary is that since the Second is eighteenth-century law, writing laws limiting its application is proper. I think Constitutional originalism is on the same thin ice as any other doctrine of infallible scripture.

So, while I generally align with what you’re saying, quoting “well-regulated” that way is not really a serviceable argument.

Fair point, though “well regulated” in that context also means trained, practiced, knowledgeable, right? One gets lessons and instruction? The militia leaders would presumably run some background checks for their militia members? Such requirements would help the gun problem immensely. Again, I started my response by saying I wouldn’t parse words. But there we go.

 

[Rob Roy]

There are some who credibly argue that in the 18th century “well-regulated” meant “proficient”, and that the modern meaning of “correctly constrained by law” is a projection. I hesitate to say this here because I do not support the other guy’s broken logic. But imho the jurisprudence on this is not a slam-dunk.

A corollary is that since the Second is eighteenth-century law, writing laws limiting its application is proper. I think Constitutional originalism is on the same thin ice as any other doctrine of infallible scripture.

So, while I generally align with what you’re saying, quoting “well-regulated” that way is not really a serviceable argument.

e. g. a timepiece with a sound mechanism that was adjusted as necessary to keep good time was considered well-regulated.

 

[Rob Roy]

Fair point, though “well regulated” in that context also means trained, practiced, knowledgeable, right? One gets lessons and instruction? The militia leaders would presumably run some background checks for their militia members? Such requirements would help the gun problem immensely. Again, I started my response by saying I wouldn’t parse words. But there we go.

Ahem.

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Aeroknow]

No, they were talking about government not having a standing army and if there was an attack, the armed citizenry would be called out to defend against the attack using the weapons commonly available at that time.

Sort of like "free speech" and "free press" meant people could use the technology available then. Of course they didn't have electric printers or computers, are you suggesting since no computers existed then, "free speech" today doesn't include written things generated by a computer?

I don't want a nuclear weapon, as it's not really a weapon that can be used "defensively". They kill indiscriminately and it's almost impossible for them not to kill innocent people, which I think is murder.

Not to mention, any people that give up their weapons, while "their servants" keep them, are no longer the masters of their servants are they?

Ok?
We have a fucking military now lol.
Our military has weapons that our founding fathers couldn’t possibly fathom back then also.
According to you though, anybody trying to restrict the use of any modern arms is guilty of treason? Wtf man.

 

[Rob Roy]

Ok?
We have a fucking military now lol.
Our military has weapons that our founding fathers couldn’t possibly fathom back then.
According to you though, anybody trying to restrict the use of any modern arms is guilty of treason? Wtf man.

I'm all for disarmament of the military industrial complex and auditing the Pentagon, when do we start ?

That's what's the fuck maaaaan!

 

[Hotrod2]

Actually when the second amendment was written, the average person could and did own the best weapons available at that time. We see this continuing to happen until modern times when Class 3 weapons were outlawed unless one had a license to own one. The fact is, American citizens can still own machine guns if they get the proper licenses. Giving enough money a person can own a cannon if they want to.

 

[cannabineer]

Fair point, though “well regulated” in that context also means trained, practiced, knowledgeable, right? One gets lessons and instruction? The militia leaders would presumably run some background checks for their militia members? Such requirements would help the gun problem immensely. Again, I started my response by saying I wouldn’t parse words. But there we go.

Back then it did not. Not only were militia called up “cold” from the citizenry (white males with land in the right age group), there was no professional military. Generals were minted fresh from the upper class. A big problem in the Revolutionary War (and up to the early Civil War) was that newly-constituted units, from foot soldier to commander, had to learn their jobs from square one, and were quite clumsy as a team until the strict teacher of contact with the enemy inspired attention.

Training to operate a gun effectively takes time, time that is at a premium when it’s time to constitute an army. My guess is that the amendment’s intent was to at least save on some of that training. It’s quicker to build a battalion from scratch when the soldiers know the abilities and limitations of the somewhat fussy guns of the day, because they used them regularly to, say, get some squirrels for dinner.

We’ve come a long way from a loose-knit society of horse farmers and city merchants. We now have a standing army, an officer corps with a good grasp on individuals’ promotability, and a whole mess of drill, tactics, logistics etc. to teach at every level. We have ROTC and the national reserve. Warfighting has changed beyond recognition.

Russia is the current object lesson in what happens when you undertrain your established military and your conscripts.

So imo it is less about parsing words, and more about fitting the terminology to its history, both military and social.
What you describe is indispensable today. A modern military has to do it as you describe. And militia also means something quite different. Back then , I would have been but for my age. Now, hell no. I never served or trained. While I am an average shot and can tell my trigger from my sight, I know zero about tactical cooperative behavior.

I guess I’m saying that all the things you mention, every one, are normal as breathing today. But each one evolved over the last 200-odd years. Reality has outpaced the text.

 

[CANON_Grow]

Found this interesting, explains the origins of "well regulated militia":

The Bill of Rights was partially based on the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. As the Library of Congress says, the Virginia Declaration was “uniquely influential” and “used by James Madison in drawing up the Bill of Rights.” Section XIII of the Declaration read:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

The final language of the Second Amendment was, of course, “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.”

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Found this interesting, explains the origins of "well regulated militia":

The Bill of Rights was partially based on the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. As the Library of Congress says, the Virginia Declaration was “uniquely influential” and “used by James Madison in drawing up the Bill of Rights.” Section XIII of the Declaration read:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

The final language of the Second Amendment was, of course, “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.”

i had read that before and was about to search for it when i saw your post.
it's always bothered me that they leave that line out, also.
we need to stop teaching about rights, and start teaching about the responsibilities that come attached to those rights...

 

[UncleJesse]

i'm not even trying to be an ass...but good luck with keeping anything, if it's decided that no one will be. you might get away with hiding some, but where will you hunt? where will you practice? you think self defense will be a valid defense when those weapons have been outlawed? whether you get prosecuted for shooting someone or not, you'll get the weapons confiscated, probably your house searched for more, and then charged...
but...i haven't heard anyone getting ready to take everyone's guns. i've heard people talking about gun control, which is desperately needed, when you see the suicide rate, when you se the stories of shootings daily all over the country, when you see monthly mass murders...yeah, guns don't kill people, people

i'm not even trying to be an ass...but good luck with keeping anything, if it's decided that no one will be. you might get away with hiding some, but where will you hunt? where will you practice? you think self defense will be a valid defense when those weapons have been outlawed? whether you get prosecuted for shooting someone or not, you'll get the weapons confiscated, probably your house searched for more, and then charged...
but...i haven't heard anyone getting ready to take everyone's guns. i've heard people talking about gun control, which is desperately needed, when you see the suicide rate, when you se the stories of shootings daily all over the country, when you see monthly mass murders...yeah, guns don't kill people, people do...WITH GUNS...

People kill people in many ways with many things but in every case it is always the person who does the killing, not the object. An easy thing to say is get rid of so and so, or ban this and that. Shit, I could make a good case against banning alcohol because a lot of people abuse the shit out of it. They get drunk and beat the fuck out of their wife and kids, drive drunk and kill.others, or drink themselves to death sitting in a chair pissing and shitting themselves because they only wake up enough to chug some vodka until they pass out again. I have seen all of that but it's not the booze that is the problem, it's what the person does with it. I really think it's a coward solution to just say "ban guns, this is out off control". That's a lazy ass cop out. A good start to fixing things would be to re-introduce the concept of personal responsibility, it seems to be lost these days.

 

[UncleJesse]

Found this interesting, explains the origins of "well regulated militia":

The Bill of Rights was partially based on the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. As the Library of Congress says, the Virginia Declaration was “uniquely influential” and “used by James Madison in drawing up the Bill of Rights.” Section XIII of the Declaration read:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

The final language of the Second Amendment was, of course, “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.”

This is NOT what many in government believe these days. This language is in line with what the framers wanted, the people giving government it's power, not the other way around.

 

[CANON_Grow]

People kill people in many ways with many things but in every case it is always the person who does the killing, not the object. An easy thing to say is get rid of so and so, or ban this and that. Shit, I could make a good case against banning alcohol because a lot of people abuse the shit out of it. They get drunk and beat the fuck out of their wife and kids, drive drunk and kill.others, or drink themselves to death sitting in a chair pissing and shitting themselves because they only wake up enough to chug some vodka until they pass out again. I have seen all of that but it's not the booze that is the problem, it's what the person does with it. I really think it's a coward solution to just say "ban guns, this is out off control". That's a lazy ass cop out. A good start to fixing things would be to re-introduce the concept of personal responsibility, it seems to be lost these days.

The discussion should be about gun control, not banning guns. I have not seen anyone that is serious about reform discussing banning guns. There are a few issues with your alcohol analogy that make it problematic; not many drunks walking into public spaces and beating multiple people to death, and driving drunk is against the law whether you crash or not.

 

[CANON_Grow]

This is NOT what many in government believe these days. This language is in line with what the framers wanted, the people giving government it's power, not the other way around.

Looks like up until 2008, that is exactly how the courts interpreted it. I don't understand the fascination with the constitution when instead of making amendments to it, a loaded court can simply ignore original intent and historical precedent. That's not a slight on the constitution, but shows the danger of a partisan supreme court. That's scary shit.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

People kill people in many ways with many things but in every case it is always the person who does the killing, not the object. An easy thing to say is get rid of so and so, or ban this and that. Shit, I could make a good case against banning alcohol because a lot of people abuse the shit out of it. They get drunk and beat the fuck out of their wife and kids, drive drunk and kill.others, or drink themselves to death sitting in a chair pissing and shitting themselves because they only wake up enough to chug some vodka until they pass out again. I have seen all of that but it's not the booze that is the problem, it's what the person does with it. I really think it's a coward solution to just say "ban guns, this is out off control". That's a lazy ass cop out. A good start to fixing things would be to re-introduce the concept of personal responsibility, it seems to be lost these days.

i'm a brown belt in wado ryu. not bragging, just saying that i know what it takes to hurt someone. you can do a lot of damage with hands and feet. but the same skilled karateka can do much more damage with a bo staff, and even more with a three section staff, and even more with a naganata.
you can kill someone with a bottle cap, but it's a lot of work. if you switch to the bottle, it gets slightly easier. if you pick up the ice bucket, you can brain someone fairly easily.
guns are a tool. they make doing the thing you want to do a whole lot easier than doing it by hand...take away the tools that make it easy to kill a shit load of people at one time, and it will happen a lot less often.
not many people are going to attack a crowd of people with a knife. happens occasionally, happened recently, but it's uncommon enough that it was news, on top of the fact that it was an attack on a group of people, it was an attack on a group of people with a knife...
and what about suicide? how many people are willing to commit sepuku? an act intentionally incredibly painful, to atone so some vile wrong?
how many people are going to cut their own throats?...
guns are a tool that make it much easier for lunatics to commit mass murders, make it a lot easier for cowards to take the easy way out, make it a lot easier for stupid kids shoplifting shit from rural king to shoot the guy trying to stop them...

 

[UncleJesse]

i'm a brown belt in wado ryu. not bragging, just saying that i know what it takes to hurt someone. you can do a lot of damage with hands and feet. but the same skilled karateka can do much more damage with a bo staff, and even more with a three section staff, and even more with a naganata.
you can kill someone with a bottle cap, but it's a lot of work. if you switch to the bottle, it gets slightly easier. if you pick up the ice bucket, you can brain someone fairly easily.
guns are a tool. they make doing the thing you want to do a whole lot easier than doing it by hand...take away the tools that make it easy to kill a shit load of people at one time, and it will happen a lot less often.
not many people are going to attack a crowd of people with a knife. happens occasionally, happened recently, but it's uncommon enough that it was news, on top of the fact that it was an attack on a group of people, it was an attack on a group of people with a knife...
and what about suicide? how many people are willing to commit sepuku? an act intentionally incredibly painful, to atone so some vile wrong?
how many people are going to cut their own throats?...
guns are a tool that make it much easier for lunatics to commit mass murders, make it a lot easier for cowards to take the easy way out, make it a lot easier for stupid kids shoplifting shit from rural king to shoot the guy trying to stop them...

I agree with what you say. Now tell me why law abiding citizens in the United States should do without because other people do bad things. The vast vast vast majority of legal gun owners cause zero issues in society.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

I agree with what you say. Now tell me why law abiding citizens in the United States should do without because other people do bad things. The vast vast vast majority of legal gun owners cause zero issues in society.

because the vast vast majority of stamp collectors aren't making it possible for psychopaths to kill people with concealed pistols...
because the vast vast majority of baseball card collectors doesn't open up loopholes that make it possible for white nationalist militias to stockpile weapons and ammo designed to be able to kill people through body armor.
because the vast vast majority of people who like to cook don't facilitate mass murders with arsenals of handguns...
but the vast vast majority of gun owners do all those things.
when ANY steps in the right direction are mentioned, there is an immediate uproar like 1000 parrots scaring the shit out of each other, and shouts of rights, and taking guns over cold dead etc.....
"constitutional carry" is horseshit, anyone carrying a gun in public should be permitted, and on file, and the weapon registered.
all weapons should be registered with the state. NO ONE needs more than 6 rounds...it was good enough for every fucking cowboy in the entire west, it's good enough for people who don't live on the fucking range.
the ONLY reason you need more rounds is because THEY needed more rounds...stop the stupid ass escalation and accept that in order to keep anything, you're going to have to give some shit up...even if it is over your cold dead etc....

 

[Fogdog]

View attachment 5241799
actual hands kill more people than rifles according to the fbi

Oregon's new gun regulations say nothing about the length of the firearm. It just requires people take a safety class and demonstrate their proficiency in safe use of one. It also requires people demonstrate that they know how to safely store their weapon, bans the sale and use of large magazines and provides extra funding for better background checks. These measures have been demonstrated to cut death rates due to firearms.

You can get all obsessive about the minutia of who died from what if you like. Just wondering why you thought it was relevant.

 

[Fogdog]

I agree with what you say. Now tell me why law abiding citizens in the United States should do without because other people do bad things. The vast vast vast majority of legal gun owners cause zero issues in society.

Oregon's new gun regulations do not affect law abiding citizens if they pass a background check before they buy a gun.