6 ms·

I would like it to be illegal for people to own guns. Those who violate the law (as the ban would be in the form of a law) would go to jail. Current owners wo

I would like it to be illegal for people to own guns. Those who violate the law (as the ban would be in the form of a law) would go to jail. Current owners would turn in their guns and those guns would be destroyed. The 2nd Amendment is oddly worded. It does speak of a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert but it seems to me that banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia should be constitutional. I could be wrong. It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. So I could see a law saying that we can own guns but they are quite limited in comparison to what is currently legal to own. There are far more people in the country now versus 250 years ago. The population density is far greater. We are much more of an urban society. In such circumstances I see no necessity for allowing gun ownership. I don't think the propensity to assholeness has increased but by virtue of having far more people now than in the past the number of assholes has greatly increased. It's best that the lethality of devices we can carry be very much curtailed than what it currently is.

ameister14 9y ago
> It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it. According to Wikipedia: In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[11] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[12][13] As I stated, I have no expertise in this matter. If it requires a repeal then that is what I would favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. " They also had no vision of the Internet. So, obviously, the First Amendment only applies to quill pens and manually-operated printing presses. Right? "The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..."" If the First Amendment had read "A well-educated legislature being essential to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" you would argue, what? That only well-educated people should have books? That only the legislature should have books? No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else, because that would be a contrived and nonsensical interpretation of the language.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      That's a clever analogy.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      Well if the first amendment were stated differently than what it is then people would interpret it differently. I fail to see your point on that. There is much that the writers of the constitution didn’t foresee. I think it’s ridiculous, in many cases, to try to seek what they originally intended. Society is far more complex now than it was then. I mentioned their views for the self described originalists. These people tend to have a very broad interpretation to what the second amendment means but narrowly interpret other parts of the Constitution. The 2nd amendment has had many cases before the Supreme Court. It wasn’t until 2008 with Heller that it was interpreted to mean an actual right to own guns. As far as I understand the history of the legal interpretation if the second amendment. It appears the modern interpretation is out of sync with what the founders intended.
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        My interpretation of the 2nd is that not only does it make explicit the right to own and carry arms, but also the right to own any and all arms of military relevance. You can't fight off King George XXIII if he has war machines imaginable only by the likes of Tyssot, Swift, Mercier, or Restif, and you still only have your musket from the 1770s. At the time of drafting, the founders hadn't yet encountered the Pawnee vs. Cheyenne/Lakota style of total warfare, and had barely even invented hit-and-run tactics. As such, it would have been prudent to amend the amendment at least once in the last 230 years. I'd prefer that laws banning chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological weapons would have constitutional backing, that torture and other war crimes be banned explicitly, and there be some concession for denying deadly munitions to antisocial maniacs and bellicose outlaws. Reinterpretation is not the proper channel towards rational arms policy, or to resolve any other problem with the document not anticipating societal progress. Amendment is the prescribed remedy. There have been calls in the past to convene an Article 5 Amendments Convention, as it is the only way to propose an amendment when the Congress won't, but we've never actually had one. Perhaps it is time?
swalsh 9y ago
"banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia " The definition of militia is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 There are two "militias", the national guard, and the unorganized militia... When I read the Federalist papers, I interrupted it as Hamilton and Jay were trying to describe a defense strategy of the country, which included internal, and external threats. When I read it, I got the feeling they both were very much against the state of affairs we have today. They advocated for a small professional army, and a large reserve of men if needed. I personally feel this is the right model, today our DoD budget is 600 BILLION dollars! Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending. If we spent less getting into conflicts we probably don't need to be involved in (I still do not understand what the national interest in Afghanistan and Iraq is), and we had a very large reserve of men. We could maintain the defense readiness we have today, but also have publically funded education, healthcare etc. I do concede that the requirements of training are much different though. A model like Switzerland's militia might be preferable. In their model, each citizen has 1 year of conscripted service. It's spread out a bit but is an adequate amount of time to train someone properly. It also provides a method for "weeding" out individuals who should not be a part of this reserve. Their gun laws are also far more strict. Gun ownership is more of a privilege there. I don't know how much of that we can do here, but I think it's a good example of how to build a militia in modern times.
- leetcrew 9y ago
  > Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending. The US spends a lot on its military, but it's only about 15% of central government spending. When you look at spending as a percentage of GDP, we (3.3%) are not that far off from European powers like France (2.3%) or the UK (1.9%) whose defense we essentially subsidize through NATO. We just have a much larger economy so that 3.3% turns out to be a really big number. There's no obvious (to me) fiscal reason why our social services have to be so poor, so I have to assume we just suck at allocating the money (possibly intentional).
  - 9y ago
cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
The original question was about your legal mechanism for implementation of a ban on private ownership on weapons. What change would you make to existing laws to enact this ban? Additionally, what is your plan to deal with the potential for violent, armed resistance to this ban, and in what facilities would you put all of the violators of this ban?

ameister14 9y ago

> It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions.

yequalsx 9y ago
And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it. According to Wikipedia: In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[11] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[12][13] As I stated, I have no expertise in this matter. If it requires a repeal then that is what I would favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  "They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. " They also had no vision of the Internet. So, obviously, the First Amendment only applies to quill pens and manually-operated printing presses. Right? "The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..."" If the First Amendment had read "A well-educated legislature being essential to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" you would argue, what? That only well-educated people should have books? That only the legislature should have books? No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else, because that would be a contrived and nonsensical interpretation of the language.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    That's a clever analogy.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    Well if the first amendment were stated differently than what it is then people would interpret it differently. I fail to see your point on that. There is much that the writers of the constitution didn’t foresee. I think it’s ridiculous, in many cases, to try to seek what they originally intended. Society is far more complex now than it was then. I mentioned their views for the self described originalists. These people tend to have a very broad interpretation to what the second amendment means but narrowly interpret other parts of the Constitution. The 2nd amendment has had many cases before the Supreme Court. It wasn’t until 2008 with Heller that it was interpreted to mean an actual right to own guns. As far as I understand the history of the legal interpretation if the second amendment. It appears the modern interpretation is out of sync with what the founders intended.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      My interpretation of the 2nd is that not only does it make explicit the right to own and carry arms, but also the right to own any and all arms of military relevance. You can't fight off King George XXIII if he has war machines imaginable only by the likes of Tyssot, Swift, Mercier, or Restif, and you still only have your musket from the 1770s. At the time of drafting, the founders hadn't yet encountered the Pawnee vs. Cheyenne/Lakota style of total warfare, and had barely even invented hit-and-run tactics. As such, it would have been prudent to amend the amendment at least once in the last 230 years. I'd prefer that laws banning chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological weapons would have constitutional backing, that torture and other war crimes be banned explicitly, and there be some concession for denying deadly munitions to antisocial maniacs and bellicose outlaws. Reinterpretation is not the proper channel towards rational arms policy, or to resolve any other problem with the document not anticipating societal progress. Amendment is the prescribed remedy. There have been calls in the past to convene an Article 5 Amendments Convention, as it is the only way to propose an amendment when the Congress won't, but we've never actually had one. Perhaps it is time?

swalsh 9y ago

"banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia " The definition of militia is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 There are two "militias", the national guard, and the unorganized militia... When I read the Federalist papers, I interrupted it as Hamilton and Jay were trying to describe a defense strategy of the country, which included internal, and external threats. When I read it, I got the feeling they both were very much against the state of affairs we have today. They advocated for a small professional army, and a large reserve of men if needed. I personally feel this is the right model, today our DoD budget is 600 BILLION dollars! Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending. If we spent less getting into conflicts we probably don't need to be involved in (I still do not understand what the national interest in Afghanistan and Iraq is), and we had a very large reserve of men. We could maintain the defense readiness we have today, but also have publically funded education, healthcare etc. I do concede that the requirements of training are much different though. A model like Switzerland's militia might be preferable. In their model, each citizen has 1 year of conscripted service. It's spread out a bit but is an adequate amount of time to train someone properly. It also provides a method for "weeding" out individuals who should not be a part of this reserve. Their gun laws are also far more strict. Gun ownership is more of a privilege there. I don't know how much of that we can do here, but I think it's a good example of how to build a militia in modern times.

leetcrew 9y ago
> Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending. The US spends a lot on its military, but it's only about 15% of central government spending. When you look at spending as a percentage of GDP, we (3.3%) are not that far off from European powers like France (2.3%) or the UK (1.9%) whose defense we essentially subsidize through NATO. We just have a much larger economy so that 3.3% turns out to be a really big number. There's no obvious (to me) fiscal reason why our social services have to be so poor, so I have to assume we just suck at allocating the money (possibly intentional).
- 9y ago

cuckcuckspruce 9y ago

The original question was about your legal mechanism for implementation of a ban on private ownership on weapons. What change would you make to existing laws to enact this ban? Additionally, what is your plan to deal with the potential for violent, armed resistance to this ban, and in what facilities would you put all of the violators of this ban?