4 ms·

How awful of the NRA to fight for a constitutional right to bear arms.

by mieseratte 7y ago

ivalm 7y ago
The current interpretation is different from historical. Historically it really did apply to "well regulated militia".
- cm2187 7y ago
  It applies to “the people”. I believe the current legal interpretation in vigueur is in the area of “because a well regulated militia is necessary, ...”
  - danaris 7y ago
    But functionally, the "well-regulated militia" of today is the US Armed Forces. I challenge you to show any way in which hundreds of millions of random citizens with handguns and zero training to fight together qualifies as well-regulated, or meaningfully as a militia to defend our country against an invasion.
    - cm2187 7y ago
      I am no constitutional expert, but my understanding is that the amendment protects the ability to form a militia. And I believe it is not meant to defend against invasion so much than to defend against tyranny (whether internal or external). And it is still true today that no army, even the US army, can control a hostile population that has a wide access to weapons. It is why the colonial wars were futile, and why no major power has ever successfully won a guerrilla war.
- herostratus101 7y ago
  The issue with this argument is that "militia" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1811: “[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.”
- rhino369 7y ago
  It was never interpreted by the supreme court to only apply to a well-regulated militia. At most, you could say the right was interpreted to only apply to guns used by a well-regulated militia in the 1930s. But before that there were no federal gun control laws, so the issue never came up.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Just because it's a right doesn't mean it needs an organization to advocate it. I mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids. Why should that not apply to guns, which are built to kill? It's a weird double standard. Sure you have the right to have a gun, but it doesn't mean it has to be advocated by an organization. It does make me wonder though, how come the NRA is successful where the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry failed?
- ch_123 7y ago
  > mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids. FWIW, I know of at least one pro smoking body with some prominent supporters in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST)
- trampypizza 7y ago
  I wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society. Guns are a 'tool' I suppose, and therefore will always require a user. Not every gun owner is going to use it to kill people. It's harder then to make the argument that guns are inherently bad, it's the people using them incorrectly that is the problem. I certainly think that there are other factors in American society which contribute and to these horrible events, such as mental health and education. I think this because there are other countries, such as Canada, where many people have weapons but these tragedies occur a lot less often. As a Brit, I think some of the gun stuff in the States is bananas, but I do recognise that there is a significant cultural difference that means I probably wont get why people are so keen to protect gun ownership to the extent that they do. I don't mean to suggest that either way is right or wrong, but I do feel that the use-case for an AR-15 is limited. Surely that's a bit over the top for hunting? And defending your home may be easier with a handgun. I am no expert though, and would be interested to hear some other views. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081 Edit: I should also say that I recognise that mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of gun-deaths and that they receive a disproportionate amount of media attention.
mikejb 7y ago
Maybe the silliness of your argument can be highlighted with a small modification: > How awful of the Confederacy to fight for a right to slaves. Societies change and evolve. The desperate clinging to ancient, outdated concepts won't hinder that progress.

How awful of the NRA to fight for a constitutional right to bear arms.

ivalm 7y ago

The current interpretation is different from historical. Historically it really did apply to "well regulated militia".

cm2187 7y ago
It applies to “the people”. I believe the current legal interpretation in vigueur is in the area of “because a well regulated militia is necessary, ...”
- danaris 7y ago
  But functionally, the "well-regulated militia" of today is the US Armed Forces. I challenge you to show any way in which hundreds of millions of random citizens with handguns and zero training to fight together qualifies as well-regulated, or meaningfully as a militia to defend our country against an invasion.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    I am no constitutional expert, but my understanding is that the amendment protects the ability to form a militia. And I believe it is not meant to defend against invasion so much than to defend against tyranny (whether internal or external). And it is still true today that no army, even the US army, can control a hostile population that has a wide access to weapons. It is why the colonial wars were futile, and why no major power has ever successfully won a guerrilla war.
herostratus101 7y ago
The issue with this argument is that "militia" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1811: “[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.”
rhino369 7y ago
It was never interpreted by the supreme court to only apply to a well-regulated militia. At most, you could say the right was interpreted to only apply to guns used by a well-regulated militia in the 1930s. But before that there were no federal gun control laws, so the issue never came up.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

Just because it's a right doesn't mean it needs an organization to advocate it. I mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids. Why should that not apply to guns, which are built to kill? It's a weird double standard. Sure you have the right to have a gun, but it doesn't mean it has to be advocated by an organization. It does make me wonder though, how come the NRA is successful where the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry failed?

ch_123 7y ago
> mean you have the right to smoke, but any organization promoting it has been squashed by legislation, banning advertisements and glorifying it. Why? Because smoking causes cancer and will kill you and your kids. FWIW, I know of at least one pro smoking body with some prominent supporters in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST)
trampypizza 7y ago
I wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society. Guns are a 'tool' I suppose, and therefore will always require a user. Not every gun owner is going to use it to kill people. It's harder then to make the argument that guns are inherently bad, it's the people using them incorrectly that is the problem. I certainly think that there are other factors in American society which contribute and to these horrible events, such as mental health and education. I think this because there are other countries, such as Canada, where many people have weapons but these tragedies occur a lot less often. As a Brit, I think some of the gun stuff in the States is bananas, but I do recognise that there is a significant cultural difference that means I probably wont get why people are so keen to protect gun ownership to the extent that they do. I don't mean to suggest that either way is right or wrong, but I do feel that the use-case for an AR-15 is limited. Surely that's a bit over the top for hunting? And defending your home may be easier with a handgun. I am no expert though, and would be interested to hear some other views. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081 Edit: I should also say that I recognise that mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of gun-deaths and that they receive a disproportionate amount of media attention.

mikejb 7y ago

Maybe the silliness of your argument can be highlighted with a small modification: > How awful of the Confederacy to fight for a right to slaves. Societies change and evolve. The desperate clinging to ancient, outdated concepts won't hinder that progress.