5 ms·

It is the NRA that has twisted the Second Amendment to say what they want. [0] [1] Let me quote from [0]: The [NRA under its new leadership] pushed for a novel

It is the NRA that has twisted the Second Amendment to say what they want. [0] [1] Let me quote from [0]: The [NRA under its new leadership] pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.” Look, you're welcome to your opinion; I'm not expecting to change it. But you should recognize that the point is quite a bit more debatable than you make it out to be. [0] http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you... [1] https://www.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_UCLA_09.pdf https://www.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/F... (the Reva Siegel article linked from [0]; that link is dead -- I think this is the intended article)

bitwize 11y ago
Well, sure, anything is debatable if you take the Humpty Dumpty stance. But if English words mean things the language in the Constitution will hamper gun control efforts in the USA. These articles are examples of what I call "sneaking repeal under the wire". Just because an article comes from a scholarly source doesn't mean it stands up to scrutiny: Michael Bellesiles landed himself in hot water attempting to argue this very issue, that the right to personal arms is a recent invention. The first tell I found in the sources you cited was when Toobin called the amendment text "ungrammatical"; it's perfectly grammatical, just not rendered in modern style. A more modern restatement of the amendment would be: "Since a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The thinking of the time -- and this is all in the freakin' Wikipedia article on the Second Amendment should you care to look -- was that the right to self-defense and to defense against tyranny were of paramount importance -- thinking that predates the Constitution and has its roots in English law. To raise a defense force from among the people it was thought necessary to protect their right to own, train with, and carry weapons. Now you may say that this right is trumped by others' right to live peaceably without fear of being shot. I won't disagree. But what you should be agitating for is repeal of the second amendment, whose language is very plain once you parse it; not for the courts to obfuscate and reinterpret the meaning. That way does lie tyranny, for the next step is for the courts to interpret away your right to not be searched without a warrant, your right not to be punished for a crime without due process, etc. Because hey, the Constitution is a living document; that means its meaning in times of old has nothing to do with today. (My belief is that the Constitution was intended as a living document and that's why it has a well specified amendment process of which we should avail ourselves.)
- walshemj 11y ago
  Common law from which US law descends has the right to self defence which is why until after a panic over the general strike the UK had fairly liberal laws around gun ownership.
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  I will admit that I have mixed feelings about the Second Amendment. As does the Supreme Court; Heller was a 5-4 decision, in which the minority disagreed with the interpretation of the text that you claim is plain and indisputable. Furthermore, "Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia." [0] You could argue, I suppose, that the true meaning of the amendment was forgotten and has been recovered, but then I think you should attempt to explain why that happened. > Now you may say that this right is trumped by others' right to live peaceably without fear of being shot. I won't disagree. Okay -- we agree on something :-) > But what you should be agitating for is repeal of the second amendment This doesn't follow. We all know about restrictions on speech that are seen as legitimate -- yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.; the examples are familiar -- yet the arguments for these restrictions are not taken as arguments for repealing the First Amendment altogether. I certainly think that my right to live peaceably, as you say, without fear of being shot, is worthy of some protection and needs to be balanced against gun ownership rights. I also wonder how well even armed citizens can defend themselves against a tyrannical government in this era of militarized police, modern weapons, and SWAT teams. 240 years ago, the arms technology race had only barely started; now it is in full swing. We know how arms races end: the side with the most money wins. Even if the Second Amendment came to be read to permit citizens to own tanks, drones, etc., people can't afford them. Personally I think the right to communicate with my fellow citizens unmonitored is more important, and in the end more likely to be decisive. [0] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-secon...
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    > I also wonder how well even armed citizens can defend themselves against a tyrannical government in this era of militarized police, modern weapons, and SWAT teams. Citizens have proven very capable of defending themselves in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria. It's true that a government willing to firebomb entire cities and murder literally everyone could overcome that resistance. However, in the modern era a government that did that would quickly see the entire world turning against them. It's also worth keeping in mind that even large, powerful, and well-armed militaries are only a fraction of the populace. In the US, something like 1/100 people are in the military. So if the US military turned against the population, and the population resisted, they'd have to fight a force that's potentially 100 times their number. Unless they were willing to firebomb their own cities and murder innocent civilians (as opposed to guerrilla fighters), they'd quickly be overcome.
15155 11y ago
There is absolutely no point in debating the past or the original text of the Second Amendment. Post-Heller, post-McDonald, it's moot. The Court's word is Constitution. If the anti-gun (really, pro-authoritarian-state) minority wants to ban firearms: they should lobby for a Constitutional amendment (which will undoubtedly fail), and then lobby for each individual state to ban arms - keeping in mind, some states have arms in their constitutional documents as well. And then, once all of the appropriate legislative and political actions have been completed, this group can have police (who will need firearms to actually enforce this law, and most of whom are pro-private-firearms themselves) go door to door and round them up. What could possibly go wrong?
- bitwize 11y ago
  Sandy Hook, Colorado (3 times in recent memory), Lafayette, San Bernardino, et cetera, et fucking cetera. Every time one of these shootings happens RKBA repeal gets dragged closer to the Overton window. The only question is how much more human blood must be shed.
  - aftbit 11y ago
    Going back to 2010, there have been 182 fatalities[1] in the United States due to mass shootings. In the same amount of time, there have been about 158 fatalities due to being struck by lightning.[2] In 2013 alone, there were 611,105 fatalities due to heart disease and 56,979 due to influenze and pneumonia.[3] The stats are a bit out of date, but from 2005-2009, ~3,500 people drowned each year.[4] If you're worried about yourself or a loved one dying, don't worry about dying in a mass shooting. It's about as likely as being struck by lightning. [1]:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-m... [2]: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/fatalities.shtml http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/fatalities.shtml [3]: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm [4]: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/wa...
    - 11y ago
Pyxl101 11y ago
It was not the NRA that pushed for this interpretation. If you are interested in the Second Amendment, I recommend reading this US Supreme Court Case opinion in full: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html It explains the meaning of the words and phrases, and their intention, and provides ample justification in the way of founding-era sources. > There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” [...] When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. [...] > That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right.

bitwize 11y ago

Well, sure, anything is debatable if you take the Humpty Dumpty stance. But if English words mean things the language in the Constitution will hamper gun control efforts in the USA. These articles are examples of what I call "sneaking repeal under the wire". Just because an article comes from a scholarly source doesn't mean it stands up to scrutiny: Michael Bellesiles landed himself in hot water attempting to argue this very issue, that the right to personal arms is a recent invention. The first tell I found in the sources you cited was when Toobin called the amendment text "ungrammatical"; it's perfectly grammatical, just not rendered in modern style. A more modern restatement of the amendment would be: "Since a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The thinking of the time -- and this is all in the freakin' Wikipedia article on the Second Amendment should you care to look -- was that the right to self-defense and to defense against tyranny were of paramount importance -- thinking that predates the Constitution and has its roots in English law. To raise a defense force from among the people it was thought necessary to protect their right to own, train with, and carry weapons. Now you may say that this right is trumped by others' right to live peaceably without fear of being shot. I won't disagree. But what you should be agitating for is repeal of the second amendment, whose language is very plain once you parse it; not for the courts to obfuscate and reinterpret the meaning. That way does lie tyranny, for the next step is for the courts to interpret away your right to not be searched without a warrant, your right not to be punished for a crime without due process, etc. Because hey, the Constitution is a living document; that means its meaning in times of old has nothing to do with today. (My belief is that the Constitution was intended as a living document and that's why it has a well specified amendment process of which we should avail ourselves.)

walshemj 11y ago
Common law from which US law descends has the right to self defence which is why until after a panic over the general strike the UK had fairly liberal laws around gun ownership.
ScottBurson 11y ago
I will admit that I have mixed feelings about the Second Amendment. As does the Supreme Court; Heller was a 5-4 decision, in which the minority disagreed with the interpretation of the text that you claim is plain and indisputable. Furthermore, "Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia." [0] You could argue, I suppose, that the true meaning of the amendment was forgotten and has been recovered, but then I think you should attempt to explain why that happened. > Now you may say that this right is trumped by others' right to live peaceably without fear of being shot. I won't disagree. Okay -- we agree on something :-) > But what you should be agitating for is repeal of the second amendment This doesn't follow. We all know about restrictions on speech that are seen as legitimate -- yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.; the examples are familiar -- yet the arguments for these restrictions are not taken as arguments for repealing the First Amendment altogether. I certainly think that my right to live peaceably, as you say, without fear of being shot, is worthy of some protection and needs to be balanced against gun ownership rights. I also wonder how well even armed citizens can defend themselves against a tyrannical government in this era of militarized police, modern weapons, and SWAT teams. 240 years ago, the arms technology race had only barely started; now it is in full swing. We know how arms races end: the side with the most money wins. Even if the Second Amendment came to be read to permit citizens to own tanks, drones, etc., people can't afford them. Personally I think the right to communicate with my fellow citizens unmonitored is more important, and in the end more likely to be decisive. [0] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-secon...
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  > I also wonder how well even armed citizens can defend themselves against a tyrannical government in this era of militarized police, modern weapons, and SWAT teams. Citizens have proven very capable of defending themselves in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria. It's true that a government willing to firebomb entire cities and murder literally everyone could overcome that resistance. However, in the modern era a government that did that would quickly see the entire world turning against them. It's also worth keeping in mind that even large, powerful, and well-armed militaries are only a fraction of the populace. In the US, something like 1/100 people are in the military. So if the US military turned against the population, and the population resisted, they'd have to fight a force that's potentially 100 times their number. Unless they were willing to firebomb their own cities and murder innocent civilians (as opposed to guerrilla fighters), they'd quickly be overcome.

15155 11y ago

There is absolutely no point in debating the past or the original text of the Second Amendment. Post-Heller, post-McDonald, it's moot. The Court's word is Constitution. If the anti-gun (really, pro-authoritarian-state) minority wants to ban firearms: they should lobby for a Constitutional amendment (which will undoubtedly fail), and then lobby for each individual state to ban arms - keeping in mind, some states have arms in their constitutional documents as well. And then, once all of the appropriate legislative and political actions have been completed, this group can have police (who will need firearms to actually enforce this law, and most of whom are pro-private-firearms themselves) go door to door and round them up. What could possibly go wrong?

bitwize 11y ago
Sandy Hook, Colorado (3 times in recent memory), Lafayette, San Bernardino, et cetera, et fucking cetera. Every time one of these shootings happens RKBA repeal gets dragged closer to the Overton window. The only question is how much more human blood must be shed.
- aftbit 11y ago
  Going back to 2010, there have been 182 fatalities[1] in the United States due to mass shootings. In the same amount of time, there have been about 158 fatalities due to being struck by lightning.[2] In 2013 alone, there were 611,105 fatalities due to heart disease and 56,979 due to influenze and pneumonia.[3] The stats are a bit out of date, but from 2005-2009, ~3,500 people drowned each year.[4] If you're worried about yourself or a loved one dying, don't worry about dying in a mass shooting. It's about as likely as being struck by lightning. [1]:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-m... [2]: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/fatalities.shtml http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/fatalities.shtml [3]: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm [4]: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/wa...
  - 11y ago

Pyxl101 11y ago

It was not the NRA that pushed for this interpretation. If you are interested in the Second Amendment, I recommend reading this US Supreme Court Case opinion in full: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html It explains the meaning of the words and phrases, and their intention, and provides ample justification in the way of founding-era sources. > There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” [...] When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. [...] > That of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right.