4 ms·

> First, the "right". Well, it's not absolute. If it was, it wouldn't be denied to felons and there wouldn't be background checks or waiting periods. You're us

> First, the "right". Well, it's not absolute. If it was, it wouldn't be denied to felons and there wouldn't be background checks or waiting periods. You're using circular reasoning here. Just because the right is currently infringed doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. That's like saying that if some people's right to vote is infringed, there really isn't a right to vote. > There's also the Second Amendment specifically noting a "well-regulated Militia". "well regulated" meant "in good working order" at the time the BoR was written. The operative clause is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which is a pretty strong statement. > The disastrous War on Drugs created the drug cartels. What do you think a new "war on guns" will do? > Guns easily obtained in the US. That's how the drug trade works: drugs into the US, money and guns out. Sometimes the US Government gives guns to the cartels which are ostensibly illegal for US civilians to own! [1] > a problem literally no one else has. The US isn't even close to the most violent country per capita. Other countries with less recognition of the right to keep and bear arms just resort to other forms of violence [2]. The "assault weapons" people are very concerned about are used in less than 300 homicides per year. More people are killed with hands and fists than all rifles (a subset of which are deemed "assault weapons") [3]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country,_region,_or_dependent_territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... [3]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-20 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

linseed_213 5y ago
How many gun deaths per year would need to occur for you to reconsider?
throw0101a 5y ago
> "well regulated" meant "in good working order" at the time the BoR was written. The late Chief Justice Burger (appointed by Nixon) disagreed: > That says a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, people's rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia -- if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? It's got to be registered, that you can't just deal with it at will. Someone asked me recently if I was for or against a bill that was pending in Congress calling for five days' waiting period. And I said, yes, I'm very much against it, it should be thirty days' waiting period so they find out why this person needs a handgun or a machine gun. * MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, Dec. 16, 1991, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo See also various comments by the late Associate Justice Stevens (Ford). The individual right to bear arms is a recent invention, with no record of the idea appearing in the legal record until a 1960 article in the William and Mary Law Review: * https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol2/iss2/6/ https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol2/iss2/6/ And in that article the author himself states: > The majority of the jurisdictions have concluded that both the United States Constitution and the various state constitutions, having a similar provision relating to the right to bear arms, refer to the militia as a whole composed and regulated by the state as it desires. The individual does not have the right to own or bear individual arms, such being a privilege not a right. A 2000 review of the literature: * PDF: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3286&context=cklawreview http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
cletus 5y ago
> Just because the right is currently infringed doesn't mean the right doesn't exist So obviously inmates should also be allowed guns too right? Where's the NRA's "AR-15s for Inmates" campaign? Hyperbolic? Sure. But it exposes the fallacy that the right (or any right for that matter) is absolute. Just like the First Amendment doesn't mean shouting "I have a bomb" in a crowded theater is protected speech the government can't criminalize. > The operative clause is ... Oh, so the first part is just irrelevant flavor text? Let me put this in context [1]: > Under the Articles of Confederation, from 1777 on, states were required to maintain their own “well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered” with “a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” The states would appoint all officers under the rank of colonel. The confederation Congress was permitted to “requisition” these militias for the “common defence,” but only “in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State.” If other states didn’t furnish their share, Congress could ask complying states for more than their proportional share—but the state legislature was guaranteed the power to refuse, even in an emergency. And even when the militia was under federal command, the state legislatures would choose replacement officers as well. You continue: > Other countries with less recognition of the right to keep and bear arms just resort to other forms of violence From your link, less murders per 100k than the United States (4.96) include Niger (4.44), Somalia (4.31) and Libya (2.52). Some other developed nations: Australia (0.88), England and Wales (1.21), Germany (0.95), Norway (0.47) and Japan (0.26). [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-...

linseed_213 5y ago

How many gun deaths per year would need to occur for you to reconsider?

throw0101a 5y ago

> "well regulated" meant "in good working order" at the time the BoR was written. The late Chief Justice Burger (appointed by Nixon) disagreed: > That says a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, people's rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia -- if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? It's got to be registered, that you can't just deal with it at will. Someone asked me recently if I was for or against a bill that was pending in Congress calling for five days' waiting period. And I said, yes, I'm very much against it, it should be thirty days' waiting period so they find out why this person needs a handgun or a machine gun. * MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, Dec. 16, 1991, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo See also various comments by the late Associate Justice Stevens (Ford). The individual right to bear arms is a recent invention, with no record of the idea appearing in the legal record until a 1960 article in the William and Mary Law Review: * https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol2/iss2/6/ https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol2/iss2/6/ And in that article the author himself states: > The majority of the jurisdictions have concluded that both the United States Constitution and the various state constitutions, having a similar provision relating to the right to bear arms, refer to the militia as a whole composed and regulated by the state as it desires. The individual does not have the right to own or bear individual arms, such being a privilege not a right. A 2000 review of the literature: * PDF: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3286&context=cklawreview http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

cletus 5y ago

> Just because the right is currently infringed doesn't mean the right doesn't exist So obviously inmates should also be allowed guns too right? Where's the NRA's "AR-15s for Inmates" campaign? Hyperbolic? Sure. But it exposes the fallacy that the right (or any right for that matter) is absolute. Just like the First Amendment doesn't mean shouting "I have a bomb" in a crowded theater is protected speech the government can't criminalize. > The operative clause is ... Oh, so the first part is just irrelevant flavor text? Let me put this in context [1]: > Under the Articles of Confederation, from 1777 on, states were required to maintain their own “well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered” with “a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” The states would appoint all officers under the rank of colonel. The confederation Congress was permitted to “requisition” these militias for the “common defence,” but only “in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State.” If other states didn’t furnish their share, Congress could ask complying states for more than their proportional share—but the state legislature was guaranteed the power to refuse, even in an emergency. And even when the militia was under federal command, the state legislatures would choose replacement officers as well. You continue: > Other countries with less recognition of the right to keep and bear arms just resort to other forms of violence From your link, less murders per 100k than the United States (4.96) include Niger (4.44), Somalia (4.31) and Libya (2.52). Some other developed nations: Australia (0.88), England and Wales (1.21), Germany (0.95), Norway (0.47) and Japan (0.26). [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-...