In pictures: US gun-blessing ceremony

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Do you think private citizens should have cruise missiles, bunker busters, nukes, etc to defend themselves? Do you think the militia concept is still relevant?

The 2A guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Unless a citizen is as strong as Superman, he would not be able to carry (bear) things like cruise missiles etc. So, it is apparent that the 2a was not intended to guarantee an individual right to monstrous sized weapons. And Nukes are pretty much banned worldwide as weapons of war except as a deterrence.

Yes the original concept of the militia is still relevant since it and the whole people are one and the same. The 2A is an individual right, not a militia right. The individual right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the individual being part of a state or federally organized militia or even part of the unorganized militia of the whole people. On the contrary, originally, the militia was dependent on the right of individuals to arm themselves. That right is inherent and constitutionally guaranteed regardless of whether the individual joins the whole people as a defensive force or doesn't. But the 2A does express that the individual can take part in and with the militia in order to defend themselves against any threat.

The federal encroachment on the original militia concept has created a new, federally regulated and funded notion of the militia. In effect, as Mason predicted, the central government has indeed usurped his notion of the militia being the whole people and turned it into what he and the Founders feared--a rather permanent standing army which funds, organizes, and arms a select force that can be used in various circumstances to police and control American citizens.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The 2A is an individual right, not a militia right.

yes...."the right of the people" is a recurring theme in the Bill of Rights

[wdmso]

The 2a supporter here are doing just what guy says .. wanting it both ways

Unfortunately, many of those who interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint (especially gun rights advocates who think the 2nd amendment gives them an unfettered right to own and carry firearms of almost any type), apparently want the best of all possible worlds:

1) First they tell us that the 2nd amendment must be interpreted literally, and that every single word that the Framers wrote means exactly what it says (an Originalist interpretation),

2) Then they tell us that they know what the Framers meant because the words in the 2nd amendment are plain and clear for all to see,

3) But (and this is a big “but”) they mix together both modern 21st century definitions and meanings in order to make the 2nd amendment come out the way they want it to!

If one is to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, isn't it fair to ask that any erstwhile interpretation of said amendment stick to the circumstances and social context the Framers found themselves in, including not just what they wrote regarding this issue but their own history viz a viz the use of the colonial militia in the United States? (In other words, go with an Originalist interpretation or take a more modern approach to the 2nd amendment, whatever you like, just don't mix the two together in such a self-serving manner, or at the very least recognize and admit to what you are doing).

[wdmso]

"A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990

in the 1970's The NRA pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment,

Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. (happens here )

1980s
Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms

The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion

But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years.

and if you think it cant swing back your not paying attention

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

"A fraud on the American public.”

I think I brought this up a few months ago that all this 2nd Amendment outrage was just a political stunt to push back against the liberal social reforms of the 1960's.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The 2a supporter here are doing just what guy says .. wanting it both ways

Unfortunately, many of those who interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint (especially gun rights advocates who think the 2nd amendment gives them an unfettered right to own and carry firearms of almost any type), apparently want the best of all possible worlds:

1) First they tell us that the 2nd amendment must be interpreted literally, and that every single word that the Framers wrote means exactly what it says (an Originalist interpretation),

2) Then they tell us that they know what the Framers meant because the words in the 2nd amendment are plain and clear for all to see,

3) But (and this is a big “but”) they mix together both modern 21st century definitions and meanings in order to make the 2nd amendment come out the way they want it to!

If one is to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, isn't it fair to ask that any erstwhile interpretation of said amendment stick to the circumstances and social context the Framers found themselves in, including not just what they wrote regarding this issue but their own history viz a viz the use of the colonial militia in the United States? (In other words, go with an Originalist interpretation or take a more modern approach to the 2nd amendment, whatever you like, just don't mix the two together in such a self-serving manner, or at the very least recognize and admit to what you are doing).

what the hell are you talking about?

"erstwhile"....that was a good one

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The 2A guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Unless a citizen is as strong as Superman, he would not be able to carry (bear) things like cruise missiles etc. So, it is apparent that the 2a was not intended to guarantee an individual right to monstrous sized weapons. And Nukes are pretty much banned worldwide as weapons of war except as a deterrence.

Yes the original concept of the militia is still relevant since it and the whole people are one and the same. The 2A is an individual right, not a militia right. The individual right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the individual being part of a state or federally organized militia or even part of the unorganized militia of the whole people. On the contrary, originally, the militia was dependent on the right of individuals to arm themselves. That right is inherent and constitutionally guaranteed regardless of whether the individual joins the whole people as a defensive force or doesn't. But the 2A does express that the individual can take part in and with the militia in order to defend themselves against any threat.

The federal encroachment on the original militia concept has created a new, federally regulated and funded notion of the militia. In effect, as Mason predicted, the central government has indeed usurped his notion of the militia being the whole people and turned it into what he and the Founders feared--a rather permanent standing army which funds, organizes, and arms a select force that can be used in various circumstances to police and control American citizens.

yep the whole debate is about control

and once they control the food, your ass is grass

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The 2A guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Unless a citizen is as strong as Superman, he would not be able to carry (bear) things like cruise missiles etc. So, it is apparent that the 2a was not intended to guarantee an individual right to monstrous sized weapons.

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

What's even funnier is his assertion that you're not entitled to nukes or tanks because you can't "bear" them because they're too heavy

Back in the day a state militiaman was supposed to have a rifle, bayonet and rucksack...not much else.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

What's even funnier is his assertion that you're not entitled to nukes or tanks because you can't "bear" them because they're too heavy

Back in the day a state militiaman was supposed to have a rifle, bayonet and rucksack...not much else.

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So because you can buy them now, but you couldn't in 1995, and you can't buy a DAU 19 or rpg today, makes it funny that we are convinced we are right. You must have done great with properties of equality in school

Didn't do great with reading comp, I bet . We think the wording allows the government to make them unattainable, not that the wording itself makes them unattainable.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, people being able to legally buy these weapons and then shoot up schools is freaking hilarious.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by zimmy

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

Zimmy, your beating your head against the proverbial 2A wall, I've used that argument to no avail many times. Logically back then there was more of a level playing field between a large group of colonialists and either their old (UK) government or their newly formed government, an armed militia could make a difference. Back then that logic worked because of the equality of weaponry, it doesn't work today. I don't care how many hand gun owners, shotgun owners, deer rifle toting militia or ever AR15 owners you put up against our military or any modern military; you loose 100 out of 100 tries.

Then I'd like to see how many pick up those weapons to fight our newly formed tyrannical government and who is calling them to arms, the entire argument is flawed. Oh don't get me wrong I believe in the 2A, but taking it to the extreme as weapons of mass destruction get more and more advanced is just not making sense IMHO. Love to hear the logistical argument for forming this constitutionally given right to bear arms and form this militia. Is the NRA going to send out an email to all you owners telling you the time has come to pick up arms to eliminate what they feel is an overreaching government?

I understand this country was founded on principles and a constitution protecting our individual freedoms, but do you think that evolving with the times isn't something these same forward thinking gentlemen would have felt essential if this country was to survive? Back then women had no rights at all, why have we given them any, if that is the way our founding fathers believed it should be. I'm certain many of those same founding fathers owned slaves, why have we given them freedoms they didn't deserve back when that document was penned?

Zimmy this is a circular argument, it never changes, the arguments remain the same, start at point A and you will eventually return there.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Very good comrade. In communist Rhode Island , you don’t ever retire, you just keep working to support the state workers who retired at age 45!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is not fair. Remember plenty retire at 45 than move to another job in the system to grab another 10.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I understand this country was founded on principles and a constitution protecting our individual freedoms, but do you think that evolving with the times isn't something these same forward thinking gentlemen would have felt essential if this country was to survive? Back then women had no rights at all, why have we given them any, if that is the way our founding fathers believed it should be. I'm certain many of those same founding fathers owned slaves, why have we given them freedoms they didn't deserve back when that document was penned?

And more rights were correctly granted in time.

The default of human history has been tyranny, slavery, and oppression. Freedom (even whittled away as suggested by the Nebster), beats the alternative. The Constitution is a road map on how to guide the country forward, to maintain some level of Freedom and Liberty. They even created a mechanism of the people to amend and replace parts of the Constitution. How prescient.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Zimmy this is a circular argument, it never changes, the arguments remain the same, start at point A and you will eventually return there.

Yep, there is room for compromise but it is not being given room. If you banned AR15s tomorrow, what would it change? If you had a reliable and unusable solution to prevent unstable people from having access to ARs, would it not be better? How can you get their without violating other people's rights?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

And more rights were correctly granted in time.

Yes, we as an evolving society, realized that not allowing women the same rights (power isn't even close) as men, was wrong. With the help of another forward thinking man, good old Abe understood that enslaving your fellow man is wrong; moving to change the thinking of the times. We have changed John, our society has made an unimaginable leap since our forefathers penned the constitution; that span of time is why thinking must change.

As difficult as times might have been when my parents (rest their soles) entered adulthood, at least you shared the values of your neighbors, your community and a common purpose always seemed to be at hand.

Oh and by the way, for those militia rights die hards, who is coordinating this move to arms, better have some very special IT skilled, capable of hacking all government servers types ready in the wings, because guess who's watching and listening to you. Cell phones, oops guess again, they will be listening. Oh I know we all are equipped with ham radios and communication and coordination will NOT be an issue; this entire argument is comical.

And the come back to the above paragraph, is this is why the 2A was written and there Zimmy we get back to point A; isn't it fun?