The 2d amendment had a purpose; that purpose is no longer relevant. — tim wood

False.

Now it's used in contexts it wasn't intended for - misused. — tim wood

False.

The 2d amendment had a purpose; that purpose is no longer relevant. — tim wood

False. — Thorongil

I was under the impression was that it's purpose was to prevent the federal government from replacing state militias with a standing army.

It's suicide. Just search "gun deaths in America." You'll come up with lots of information along the same lines.
— tim wood
I didn't include suicide for good reason. — Harry Hindu

Maybe so, but not mentioning the omission rendered your categorical statement false. Whether it's relevant is at the least arguable.

You also adduce that people have a right to suicide. People can commit suicide. Whether they have a right to is also arguable. The problem is that you state it as a fact. it isn't.

And so you really do believe that gun laws are perfect right now? As you avoided the question. Look, I am very understanding that the law isn't going to change with a click of the fingers but all we are asking for is more safety and the law isn't safe the way it is right now. We already wait for big mass shootings before this debate rises again. Why not do something now to prevent it from happening? I don't care about statistics at this point because the actions of a few kids shooting up their schools is enough for anyone (well clearly not but) to actually think, well maybe we should do something to prevent this from happening considering it is a regular occurrence. If you argue that, i really lose faith in this country.

1. prohibition on concealed weapons;
2. felony and mental health checks, no sale on a positive;
3. registration of gun owners;
4. qualification - a gun test like a driver's license, failed? you don't get a gun;
5. a limit to the number of guns one person can own;
6. prohibition to carry guns in public places;
7. prohibition on dangerous guns to include fully automatic rifles — Benkei

Regarding no. 7, by my understanding, sale of "fully automatic" rifles is prohibited already. But, sale of semi-automatics is not. Unfortunately, semi-automatics may function as automatics through use of the now widely-known bump stocks and by other means. The recoil of a semi-automatic weapon may be used to fire multiple shots. I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Because I shoot clay pigeons, not animals or people, I usually load no more than 2 shells. There is the ability to load more. It depends on the capacity of the weapon's magazine (that's where shells are stored). Most shotguns have 4 + 1; 4 in the magazine, 1 in the chamber. Rifles like the AR-15 can be equipped with magazines with 30 rounds, or more I believe.

Since I think (perhaps wrongly) that many who buy guns don't spend much time learning how to shoot accurately, or care for them generally, and since I think hanguns are very inaccurate, I'd be all for training. I don't think there's much of a legal argument to the contrary.

I think it takes a peculiar kind of person to carry a firearm in public (I've seen someone wearing a handgun in a restaurant), or walk around with them, concealed or not. I think most of us gun owners are registered already. Criminal and mental health checks simply make sense.

The legal rights set forth in the Constitution are always subject to reasonable restrictions. These seem reasonable to me.

ah... I thought an ar-15 is a fully automatic. Goes to show how much I know about guns. What's the difference exactly between fully and semi - automatic? Let's prohibit bump stocks too. By themselves they aren't even guns so that should be quite straightforward.

Semi-automatic means a single bullet is fired per trigger pull. A fully automatic gun, however, continues to fire as long as the trigger is held down.

Its purpose is to grant the people the right to keep and bear arms, just as it says. This isn't esoteric stuff.

Semi-automatic and automatic weapons both reload automatically. In other words, it isn't necessary to reload the weapon each time it is fired. It will reload until its ammunition is exhausted. But as Maw said, regardless of the amount of ammo in a semi-automatic's magazine, it fires one shot only with each pull of the trigger. Automatics are made for rapid, multiple fire, and will fire as long as the trigger is held until the ammunition runs out.

Its purpose is to grant the people the right to keep and bear arms, just as it says. This isn't esoteric stuff. — Thorongil

I was addressing the issue of why the right to keep and bear arms was granted. There's an article here about it that references the sources Scalia used¹ in his opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.

¹ e.g. Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley in 1898: "A standing army is peculiarly obnoxious in any free government, and the jealousy of one has at times been demonstrated so strongly in England as almost to lead to the belief that a standing army recruited from among themselves was more dreaded as an instrument of oppression than a tyrannical king, or any foreign power. So impatient did the English people become of the very army which liberated them from the tyranny of James II., that they demanded its reduction, even before the liberation could be felt to be complete; and to this day, the British Parliament render a standing army practically impossible by only passing a mutiny bill from session to session. The alternative to a standing army is "a well-regulated militia," but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms."

If this is right, and the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide for an alternative to a standing army, then @tim wood is right in claiming that it's purpose is no longer relevant. The existence of a standing army (and one far better equipped and trained than a citizen's militia) renders the Second Amendment moot.

You know better! (We're talking about the 2d amendment). Why do you argue from error? If nothing else, the restraint in the amendment is against the new federal authority. It's not, in short, and never was, the general grant you appear to think it was. Grant that and the argument for gun rights from original intent evaporates - disappears. (Original intent is problematic in itself.)

There remains a modern argument as to what, if anything at all, gun "rights" should be, what restrictions should apply, and who should apply them. Neither "the people," nor the argument itself, is well-served by reference to or reliance on the 2d amendment. Indeed, it seems to me that from the language of the amendment, we could fairly judge it silent as to individual gun ownership.

If you think any disagreement by you has any merit, beyond mere assertion of disagreement, please make your case. Mere assertion without substantive argument is at this point just a waste of all of our time - and it makes you look bad.

The path that leads toward a safer America involves compromise. If we want more targeted prevention, then we'll have to relinquish some of our privacy. If we want better policing, then we'll need to treat our police forces with trust and respect and an understanding of why they do what they do. If we think that the private ownership of semi-automatic firearms ought to be illegal, then we're gonna have to keep safe those many thousands, even millions, of law-abiding American citizens who depend on such firearms to protect themselves. If we want to target the illegal proliferation of firearms, then we've gotta address the profit-mongering gun manufacturers without threatening politicians who are taking bribes.

I could go on, but all of these and more are trade-offs that the US population must consider, otherwise we'll continue to flounder in mass murders and gang violence. If it were easy to solve this issue it would have been done so long ago. That it hasn't is down to the unwillingness of those in society to recognize that they've signed a social contract, which entails the giving up of certain degrees of freedom so that the whole of society can move forward and not regress into a Hobbesian-like state of nature. But, in the classically American way of wanting everything immediately and forever, I can't be too surprised at the unwillingness of people to give up what, in all reality, they must.

If we want better policing, then we'll need to treat our police forces with trust and respect and an understanding of why they do what they do. If we think that the private ownership of semi-automatic firearms ought to be illegal, then we're gonna have to keep safe those many thousands, even millions, of law-abiding American citizens who depend on such firearms to protect themselves. — Buxtebuddha

I think most police would acknowledge that partly responsible for community distrust - still, I agree with you. But I doubt there are even three people in the entire USA who need guns to defend themselves. They may think they do.... For the rest, good thoughts!

Why not change gun laws? — David Solman

Changing laws does not necessarily mean that the people will change their way of life. The laws have to be enforced before they can start the process. Any ideas about how they could enforce a gun ban?

Why are you people so ignorant, — David Solman

This implies that the people do not know about the problem as you call it. That is not true. They are all well aware that the shit hits the fan sometimes. The main problem is that it affects so few of the population. And if as you say it is the people that use the guns that are the cause then it is such a minority of the people that no one feels guilty because some idiot used a gun wrongly.

Make it safer, more secure so that this doesn't keep happening. It's the obvious thing to do. — David Solman

.I keep asking exactly how this can be done and as far as I know no one has come up with a workable solution.

Are you really saying that the laws on guns are perfect the way it is currently? — David Solman

I doubt that anyone is saying that. Almost everyone thinks that something should be done to stop these disturbed people going this kind of thing.

Indeed, it seems to me that from the language of the amendment, we could fairly judge it silent as to individual gun ownership. — tim wood

Well, to be honest if I read USA vs. Miller, the language of the 1st amendment and the dissenting opinion of Columbia vs. Heller I have to agree with this.

The first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's an unqualified prohibition on Congress to not pass certain laws. The idea that the 2nd amendment is also unqualified because the first part is merely a prefatory clause doesn't seem to be a natural interpretation of the amendments taken together. So basically I disagree with the decision in the Heller case but at the same time it's pretty clear what the Supreme Court will rule in its current make-up and that's a continuation of Heller.

So you might be right but you're not going to win that case.

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” — Karl Frederick, the President of the Freaking NRA, 1939

(lifted from cracked.com)

You are blaming the problem with guns on drugs and gangs. You are wrong. The problem is mentally ill children are getting their hands on guns too easily. This hasn't happened once or twice, this happens all the time. Instead of pulling it back to drugs and gangs can you please address what you think we should do to prevent school shootings? Or any mass shootings because unless you can give me a reasonable statistic that backs your claim, you're on your own. Facts, need facts... — David Solman

As I said, I already addressed the mental illness issue. The fact is that you are engaging in selective outrage. What about the uncountable number of children killed on the streets in the crossfire between rival gangs and drug dealers? You don't seem to care about them at all. The vast majority of gun deaths are the result of drugs and gangs. I have also shown that the relationship between other developed countries and their lack of gun violence isn't their gun laws, rather its their drug laws.

School shootings are a small fraction of the gun related deaths and it requires a different solution. It requires that the FBI actually follow through with the information given to them by people who havd reported someone with violent tendencies and has threatened to shoot up a school. It also requires that psychiatrists and psychologists report their patients to the authorities if they show that they are danger to themselves and others.

Another thing we can do is place armed guards at schools. People seem to think it is okay to have armed guards in banks guarding stacks of paper. Why would we have a problem having armed guards protecting our children?

Maybe so, but not mentioning the omission... — tim wood

...and neither has anyone else in this thread except yourself. Its a red herring. You're off-topic.

You also adduce that people have a right to suicide. People can commit suicide. Whether they have a right to is also arguable. The problem is that you state it as a fact. it isn't. — tim wood

So people don't have a right to choose their own path for their life? So people wouldn't find other ways to commit suicide? Give me a break, dude. You're not worth my time.

The leadership of the NRA was once in favor of gun control. That's hard to believe, I know, as that leadership has for some time been dominated by mere shills for gun manufacturers (they contribute millions to the NRA). It's become a kind of trade association, unfortunately. It was once quite different.

Here is a quote I had from the other thread but it pertains to this as well:

Here's a question, would you even want to live in an apocalyptic dystopian world where there is armed struggle between the citizenry and government in an anarchic state of "anything goes" regarding weapons? At that point, the structures of civilization itself has lost, and it is doubtful it will be a good world worth trying to thrive in anyways. So the argument that guns will play a role in some apocalyptic end game against a tyrannical government seems like a dead one from the start.

Also, as some posters suggested, the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, large-scale missiles, and you name it. You think your assault rifles or other pitly firearms matter much to that? The Founders had muskets and cannons- that was it. What would they say with modern weapons? Would they possibly say the idea of a competently armed citizenry is ridiculous in the face of military grade weapons that have been stockpiled since WWI in the US Government?

Thirdly, your premise that the only reason for the 2nd Amendment was a tyrannical government is false. One of the main reasons was actually much more nefarious. Southerners, especially in places like Virginia, were suspicious of the new federal government's formation of a standing army. They thought that if there was a federal army, they might take away the local militias. Now, why did many southerners want local militias? Because the slaveowners were reliant on regional volunteer militias to keep the slave population from revolting. These slaveholders did not want the government interfering with their ability to control their slave population. James Madison, a Virginian himself, the primary drafter of the Bill of Rights, knew this concern, and it was a factor in the prominence of this amendment.

Mere assertion without substantive argument is at this point just a waste of all of our time — tim wood

That is precisely what you have done, tim. I have provided the reason, by quoting court documents, as to why the Amendment grants an individual, and not a collective, right to own and bear arms. You have merely asserted the contrary without evidence. Put up or shut up, I say.

and the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide for an alternative to a standing army — Michael

No, not necessarily. I agree with Heller that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Protection from government tyranny, both foreign and domestic, may have been one reason for the Amendment, but self-protection was another and in fact underlies the former.

No, not necessarily. I agree with Heller that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Protection from government tyranny, both foreign and domestic, may have been one reason for the Amendment, but self-protection was another and in fact underlies the former. — Thorongil

It's pretty selective to agree with Heller in light of the history of supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It was pretty much stare decisis before Heller. Miller had been challenged 4 times before Heller overturned it and the interpretation had been reaffirmed by lower courts for decades until Heller. The Heller interpretation is not a very good one and definitely not unassailable.

It's pretty selective to agree with Heller in light of the history of supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd amendment. — Benkei

It's no less selective than to agree with a previous court's interpretation to the exclusion of Heller.

I haven't, I made an actual argument before.

Okay, so have I.

No, not necessarily. I agree with Heller that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." — Thorongil

I didn't claim otherwise. I was pointing out that the reason an individual was given the right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia was to allow for the formation of a militia should the need arise, in lieu of a standing army. Although the prefatory clause doesn't restrict the operative clause, it isn't an irrelevant comment.

Protection from government tyranny, both foreign and domestic, may have been one reason for the Amendment, but self-protection was another and in fact underlies the former. — Thorongil

Do you have a source on that? The sources I've seen (e.g. those provided by Scalia in his opinion) seem to refer back to objections to a standing army and government tyranny.

Never mind; found a good source here.

Although I wonder if this "self-defence" reasoning would be to apply original intent rather than original meaning. I would have thought the latter – the dominant theory – would have us understand that the purpose of the right to bear arms is to protect the state militia (although, again, that's not to say that the right only applies when serving in a militia), because that's just what the words mean.

Why do some 'Muricans directly equate gun ownership with the consolidation of their rights and freedoms?