13 ms·

> Societies evolve and social views change. That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal

> Societies evolve and social views change. That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change. I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment. The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is really concerning. And it's self-defeating. It'll only make americans more wary of losing our 2nd amendment rights and increase gun sales.

yequalsx 9y ago
The 2nd Amendment does speak of a well regulated militia and it being necessary for the defense of the United States. I'm in favor a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer and have no expertise on the legalities but I do know that amendments can be repealed. There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.
- 4d66ba06 9y ago
  This podcast episode on the Second Amendment was fascinating as it discusses how the US Courts interpretation of the second amendment changed http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    Thank you for the link. I'll listen to it later.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008) for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
- zombieprocesses 9y ago
  > There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it. I didn't say it was unconstitutional. The constitution makes it very difficult to repeal for a reason. It's why only 1 amendment has ever been repealed and that amendment was written nearly 150 years after the founding of the country. I'm fairly certain that the 1st and 2nd amendment are pretty much untouchable. But I wish you the best in trying to get it repealed. The more you try to get it repealed, the more people will support the 2nd amendment and remind people that we actually have rights that we need to protect lest it be taken from us.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    I grew up a Reagan Republican in the Canal Zone. At that time I never thought I would see the U.S. (much less conservatives) embrace torture, mass surveillance, things like the Patriot Act, renditions, and other such things that have become commonplace. People haven't been particularly assertive of their right to free speech. Few complained when Clinton instituted "free speech" zones at major political events. Now such is commonplace. It does not stretch my imagination to see people being fed up with it being legal to own firearms with the lethality that is currently allowable. I may be wrong. Fight for your rights. Be vigilant. I will continue to advocate for repealing the right to own guns. I may never see my vision come to fruition.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > I'm in favor a well regulated militia. So people can have guns as long as they're in a "well-regulated militia"? Do we want all gun owners to be in self-governed militias? I don't follow this line of thought.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Of course a repeal of the amendment would be fine with me too.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep "the military" (British troops) from taking weapons away from arguably "self-regulated" militias. I think it's a tough case to make if you're arguing that the Constitution was referring solely to current members of armed services commissioned by the government.
      - yequalsx 9y ago
        Those militias were under the control of the colonial government. Indeed one of the colonials killed at Lexington was an ensign. That militia was the army at the time.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        To complete the thought experiment, what would we have to do to form our own militia? Have a charter and elections? The colonial army at the time was not sanctioned by the king to bear the arms it did.
- splintercell 9y ago
  "well regulated" meant "well functioning". Like "a well regulated clock". > There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it. You really think you can get 34 states to vote to repeal something from our bill of rights? If you are a democrat mastermind and want to do that then your best bet is to get more and more states created out of the blue states to get more than 2/3rd of the states to vote to repeal 2nd Amendment.
kevhito 9y ago
The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive. Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, like gun rights, leads to the opposite: at times it feels like we are heading towards outright civil war. In the face of an obvious societal problem like gun violence, real conservatism would say sure, lets make some small changes to gun regulation, see how that goes for a few years or decades, then re-evaluate our position to see if society is better or worse off. Instead, seemingly obvious minor tweaks to gun regulation get cast as the first giant step towards impending repeal of the 2nd amendment. Maybe we are past the point of no return, I don't know.
- jdanp 9y ago
  NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun. Not sure of the first two off the top of my head, but the other two of the named examples are things that the NRA vociferously opposed, and (especially Brady) fought to repeal after they were adopted, so not exactly examples of the NRA budging. Ditto with many of them state laws you wave your hand at. The NRA may lose sometimes, but thats different than budging.
    - 9y ago
sp527 9y ago
The NRA/Republican Party's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a total fabrication. The amendment was meant to apply to a standing militia organized by a state (potentially in opposition to the federal government). The Founders weren't stupid. They did not intend for any random nut to have the right to carry a gun. The lethality of weapons available at the time the 2nd amendment was introduced is not even remotely comparable to that of the puniest modern handgun. Simply put, an armed individual didn't pose much of a threat back then. They could hardly envision the nightmares we have to endure today, or else they might have been more precise with the language in order to preclude exactly this sort of Al-Qaeda-esque interpretative perversion of a 'sacred text'. That you're dispensing the carefully-crafted bile conservatives have vomited into our society is little more than a testament to their capacity to brainwash the masses.
- patrickg_zill 9y ago
  The object is, that every man should have a gun - Patrick Henry You might well be a member of your state militia and not even be aware of it...
  - flounders 9y ago
    There is an interesting section that goes into the scholarly interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the Wikipedia article on it, and it's only been in the 20th century and after that we have gotten into what militia, well regulated and whether or not the people have the right or militias. The main point the founding fathers had for the militias was to defend the country from foreign invaders and from a tyrannical government. I know people think we don't need to worry about tyrannical governments these days, but what if what happened in Libya, Syria and Egypt started happening here? How would we fix that kind of a situation?
    - pasquinelli 9y ago
      the hypothetical tyrant just wins over the gun nuts who shoot up the regular folks. tidy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
chx 9y ago
> That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm. This is legal nonsense put together relatively recently, starting as answer to the Black Panthers arming themselves and then later some politics. Please look at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec... > From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. And, in light of recent events: everyone not turning in their own guns and campaigning strongly for reversing this nonsense is an accessory to the mass murder of children. Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.
- lightedman 9y ago
  "You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm." The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. District of Columbia vs. Heller.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    ...because the text is in the Constitution in very clear wording. Trying to use syntax tricks to explain an alternate meaning for the second amendment results in nonsense, really. People who are against gun rights aren't for "well-organized militias" in general.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      Very clear wording that took over 200 yeas for there to be a Supreme Court willing to agree with that interpretayption. Previous courts disagreed. Given this no one can reasonably think it’s very clear wording.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        Guns were not banned for 200 years. D.C. vs. Heller in particular overturned parts of a law passed in 1975.
pasquinelli 9y ago
the constitution allows itself to be changed. ultimately it comes down to the whims of society.
- itbeho 9y ago
  It takes more than a whim to change it.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Hacking apart the constitution because it is too hard to persuade people to amend it is a bigger problem than videos about AR-15s.
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    All you have to do is appoint the right judges.

yequalsx 9y ago

The 2nd Amendment does speak of a well regulated militia and it being necessary for the defense of the United States. I'm in favor a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer and have no expertise on the legalities but I do know that amendments can be repealed. There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

4d66ba06 9y ago
This podcast episode on the Second Amendment was fascinating as it discusses how the US Courts interpretation of the second amendment changed http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...
- yequalsx 9y ago
  Thank you for the link. I'll listen to it later.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008) for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
zombieprocesses 9y ago
> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it. I didn't say it was unconstitutional. The constitution makes it very difficult to repeal for a reason. It's why only 1 amendment has ever been repealed and that amendment was written nearly 150 years after the founding of the country. I'm fairly certain that the 1st and 2nd amendment are pretty much untouchable. But I wish you the best in trying to get it repealed. The more you try to get it repealed, the more people will support the 2nd amendment and remind people that we actually have rights that we need to protect lest it be taken from us.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  I grew up a Reagan Republican in the Canal Zone. At that time I never thought I would see the U.S. (much less conservatives) embrace torture, mass surveillance, things like the Patriot Act, renditions, and other such things that have become commonplace. People haven't been particularly assertive of their right to free speech. Few complained when Clinton instituted "free speech" zones at major political events. Now such is commonplace. It does not stretch my imagination to see people being fed up with it being legal to own firearms with the lethality that is currently allowable. I may be wrong. Fight for your rights. Be vigilant. I will continue to advocate for repealing the right to own guns. I may never see my vision come to fruition.
humanrebar 9y ago
> I'm in favor a well regulated militia. So people can have guns as long as they're in a "well-regulated militia"? Do we want all gun owners to be in self-governed militias? I don't follow this line of thought.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Of course a repeal of the amendment would be fine with me too.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep "the military" (British troops) from taking weapons away from arguably "self-regulated" militias. I think it's a tough case to make if you're arguing that the Constitution was referring solely to current members of armed services commissioned by the government.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      Those militias were under the control of the colonial government. Indeed one of the colonials killed at Lexington was an ensign. That militia was the army at the time.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        To complete the thought experiment, what would we have to do to form our own militia? Have a charter and elections? The colonial army at the time was not sanctioned by the king to bear the arms it did.
splintercell 9y ago
"well regulated" meant "well functioning". Like "a well regulated clock". > There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it. You really think you can get 34 states to vote to repeal something from our bill of rights? If you are a democrat mastermind and want to do that then your best bet is to get more and more states created out of the blue states to get more than 2/3rd of the states to vote to repeal 2nd Amendment.

kevhito 9y ago

The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive. Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, like gun rights, leads to the opposite: at times it feels like we are heading towards outright civil war. In the face of an obvious societal problem like gun violence, real conservatism would say sure, lets make some small changes to gun regulation, see how that goes for a few years or decades, then re-evaluate our position to see if society is better or worse off. Instead, seemingly obvious minor tweaks to gun regulation get cast as the first giant step towards impending repeal of the 2nd amendment. Maybe we are past the point of no return, I don't know.

jdanp 9y ago
NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun. Not sure of the first two off the top of my head, but the other two of the named examples are things that the NRA vociferously opposed, and (especially Brady) fought to repeal after they were adopted, so not exactly examples of the NRA budging. Ditto with many of them state laws you wave your hand at. The NRA may lose sometimes, but thats different than budging.
  - 9y ago

sp527 9y ago

The NRA/Republican Party's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a total fabrication. The amendment was meant to apply to a standing militia organized by a state (potentially in opposition to the federal government). The Founders weren't stupid. They did not intend for any random nut to have the right to carry a gun. The lethality of weapons available at the time the 2nd amendment was introduced is not even remotely comparable to that of the puniest modern handgun. Simply put, an armed individual didn't pose much of a threat back then. They could hardly envision the nightmares we have to endure today, or else they might have been more precise with the language in order to preclude exactly this sort of Al-Qaeda-esque interpretative perversion of a 'sacred text'. That you're dispensing the carefully-crafted bile conservatives have vomited into our society is little more than a testament to their capacity to brainwash the masses.

patrickg_zill 9y ago
The object is, that every man should have a gun - Patrick Henry You might well be a member of your state militia and not even be aware of it...
- flounders 9y ago
  There is an interesting section that goes into the scholarly interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the Wikipedia article on it, and it's only been in the 20th century and after that we have gotten into what militia, well regulated and whether or not the people have the right or militias. The main point the founding fathers had for the militias was to defend the country from foreign invaders and from a tyrannical government. I know people think we don't need to worry about tyrannical governments these days, but what if what happened in Libya, Syria and Egypt started happening here? How would we fix that kind of a situation?
  - pasquinelli 9y ago
    the hypothetical tyrant just wins over the gun nuts who shoot up the regular folks. tidy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

chx 9y ago

> That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm. This is legal nonsense put together relatively recently, starting as answer to the Black Panthers arming themselves and then later some politics. Please look at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec... > From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. And, in light of recent events: everyone not turning in their own guns and campaigning strongly for reversing this nonsense is an accessory to the mass murder of children. Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.

lightedman 9y ago
"You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm." The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. District of Columbia vs. Heller.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  ...because the text is in the Constitution in very clear wording. Trying to use syntax tricks to explain an alternate meaning for the second amendment results in nonsense, really. People who are against gun rights aren't for "well-organized militias" in general.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    Very clear wording that took over 200 yeas for there to be a Supreme Court willing to agree with that interpretayption. Previous courts disagreed. Given this no one can reasonably think it’s very clear wording.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Guns were not banned for 200 years. D.C. vs. Heller in particular overturned parts of a law passed in 1975.

pasquinelli 9y ago

the constitution allows itself to be changed. ultimately it comes down to the whims of society.

itbeho 9y ago
It takes more than a whim to change it.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Hacking apart the constitution because it is too hard to persuade people to amend it is a bigger problem than videos about AR-15s.
- chillwaves 9y ago
  All you have to do is appoint the right judges.