5 ms·

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. That's the w

by Y_Y 5y ago

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. That's the whole thing. I think the most literal interpretation is that people have a right to bear arms, and you cant infringe that, by telling them they can't bear any arms. Obviously reasonable people will differ here, but I don't think it's fair to say that it unambiguously grants the right to bear any kind of arms at all.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
At the time of writing, "Arms" was muskets. So you've already stated that it isn't reasonable to allow the other "arms". So why is anything more than a single shot barrel-loaded rifle allowed? Of course the reason is that there is a massive industry in making guns and a rabid source of people that can be scared into buying their wares. The reason the laws are the way they are is because of the economics of the lobby and not any principle.
- maxwell 5y ago
  What about e.g. https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/multi-shot-assault-weapons-of-the-1700s-and-the-2nd-amendment/ https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/multi-shot-assault-... ? It's unreasonable to restrict ownership of arms unless you want to restrict violence to the government and organized criminals, which the founders most certainly did not intend. Police killed more Americans in 2019 than mass shooters, how can you make an argument in favor of the cops and courts controlling weaponry? Did you miss the police brutality protests last summer?
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    I'm not a citizen of the US so I don't really have a horse in this race (about "gun rights") but I am curious about your comment. I don't understand how the right to bear arms has kept police from killing any Americans in 2019 and how it will keep them from killing more in 2021. Can you explain? I also don't understand how citizens of the US are meant to protect themselves against police with the weapons they're free to carry. Is the idea that US citizens are going to use their weapons to resist the police from arresting them? Isn't that just going to cause no end of bloodshed?
    - anonfornoreason 5y ago
      If you look at police shootings, the bulk are police killing people brandishing guns or other weapons, who express intent to or are in the process of using those weapons on either the police or other people. The vast majority of these incidents happen to hardened criminals that almost no one in their right mind would support. A small fraction of these incidents involve innocent people, or people involved in situations where violence is not the answer and de-escalation would have been a better outcome. The police have a large amount of support because the people involved in these incidents are, generally speaking, bad people that the majority would prefer to be in prison. Most people don't think the police are an oppressive force that should be fought against with lethal violence.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  The guns that Lewis and Clark used on their expedition were decidedly quite fast firing. Yes, it was short after the 2nd Amendment and certainly in the founders' sites of possible.
- splitstud 5y ago
  The right is codified law. It is not up to citizens to argue this. It is up to to those who need to control others to make these arguments. Yours are hncompelling, and have been swatted away by courts for decades.
maxwell 5y ago
The 18th century "regulated" means "well trained" today. What implies that any restrictions on the type of arms which may be possessed would be Constitutional? Where is the ambiguity outside of misunderstanding the contemporary meaning of "regulated"? "Bearing" doesn't mean using/firing weapons, of course, it's about preventing any authority from monopolizing violence. Certainly the founders—you know, the violent, enlightened revolutionaries who lead the first colonial overthrow in history—wouldn't have favored limiting certain arms to only thugs of a future tyrannical government. Why would they write the first Constitution in history to enable future state-sponsored goons to persecute the people of the United States? After McDonald v. Chicago, no restrictions on arms appear Constitutional (hence the collapse of intrastate weapon laws over the past decade), except, I suppose, as punishment for a crime due to the 13th.
- cogman10 5y ago
  The way the US government works today is VERY different from the government setup by the founders. Trying to divine what they would and wouldn't have wanted (understanding that they were all over the board on opinions) isn't a useful exercise. The founders didn't want a federal military, they wanted each state to run their own military. The founders didn't want a strong federal government, they wanted to states to be highly sovereign. The founders put in the bill of rights to limit the federal government's actions, not state government actions. The government completely changed after the civil war with the 14th amendment. The constitution was written primarily to limit the powers of the federal government. States were free to put, for example, requirements on religion to run for office. McDonald v. Chicago would have been appalling to the founders, because it's the federal government trampling over the rights of a state government.
  - maxwell 5y ago
    I agree on divining intent, but I'm not aware of any founder endorsing any form of arms control. I'd be interested to see any references suggesting otherwise. Are you aware of any meaningful debate on what became the Second? I'm mostly going off Jefferson's "tree of liberty" letter [1], maybe there was dissent amongst other founders? As far as federal vs. state military, I dunno, references? Each state would have their own navy...? Doesn't seem to fit with Jefferson's willingness to launch a preemptive strike on African pirates at the beginning of his presidency [2]. Agreed on strong states, hence the Tenth, and the impact of the Fourteenth, though I'm actually currently trying to get a better handle on that one (e.g. not entirely clear on equal protection yet). Disagree on McDonald, doesn't seem like the design allows for states to pass laws that take away rights explicitly enumerated in the federal Constitution. States can "exceed" enumerated rights (like California's affirmative right to free speech), but can't cancel them out. Any sources suggesting otherwise? 1. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html#105 https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html#105 2. https://www.city-journal.org/html/jefferson-versus-muslim-pirates-13013.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/jefferson-versus-muslim-pi...

by Y_Y 5y ago

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

At the time of writing, "Arms" was muskets. So you've already stated that it isn't reasonable to allow the other "arms". So why is anything more than a single shot barrel-loaded rifle allowed? Of course the reason is that there is a massive industry in making guns and a rabid source of people that can be scared into buying their wares. The reason the laws are the way they are is because of the economics of the lobby and not any principle.

maxwell 5y ago
What about e.g. https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/multi-shot-assault-weapons-of-the-1700s-and-the-2nd-amendment/ https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/multi-shot-assault-... ? It's unreasonable to restrict ownership of arms unless you want to restrict violence to the government and organized criminals, which the founders most certainly did not intend. Police killed more Americans in 2019 than mass shooters, how can you make an argument in favor of the cops and courts controlling weaponry? Did you miss the police brutality protests last summer?
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  I'm not a citizen of the US so I don't really have a horse in this race (about "gun rights") but I am curious about your comment. I don't understand how the right to bear arms has kept police from killing any Americans in 2019 and how it will keep them from killing more in 2021. Can you explain? I also don't understand how citizens of the US are meant to protect themselves against police with the weapons they're free to carry. Is the idea that US citizens are going to use their weapons to resist the police from arresting them? Isn't that just going to cause no end of bloodshed?
  - anonfornoreason 5y ago
    If you look at police shootings, the bulk are police killing people brandishing guns or other weapons, who express intent to or are in the process of using those weapons on either the police or other people. The vast majority of these incidents happen to hardened criminals that almost no one in their right mind would support. A small fraction of these incidents involve innocent people, or people involved in situations where violence is not the answer and de-escalation would have been a better outcome. The police have a large amount of support because the people involved in these incidents are, generally speaking, bad people that the majority would prefer to be in prison. Most people don't think the police are an oppressive force that should be fought against with lethal violence.
t-writescode 5y ago
The guns that Lewis and Clark used on their expedition were decidedly quite fast firing. Yes, it was short after the 2nd Amendment and certainly in the founders' sites of possible.
splitstud 5y ago
The right is codified law. It is not up to citizens to argue this. It is up to to those who need to control others to make these arguments. Yours are hncompelling, and have been swatted away by courts for decades.

maxwell 5y ago

The 18th century "regulated" means "well trained" today. What implies that any restrictions on the type of arms which may be possessed would be Constitutional? Where is the ambiguity outside of misunderstanding the contemporary meaning of "regulated"? "Bearing" doesn't mean using/firing weapons, of course, it's about preventing any authority from monopolizing violence. Certainly the founders—you know, the violent, enlightened revolutionaries who lead the first colonial overthrow in history—wouldn't have favored limiting certain arms to only thugs of a future tyrannical government. Why would they write the first Constitution in history to enable future state-sponsored goons to persecute the people of the United States? After McDonald v. Chicago, no restrictions on arms appear Constitutional (hence the collapse of intrastate weapon laws over the past decade), except, I suppose, as punishment for a crime due to the 13th.

cogman10 5y ago
The way the US government works today is VERY different from the government setup by the founders. Trying to divine what they would and wouldn't have wanted (understanding that they were all over the board on opinions) isn't a useful exercise. The founders didn't want a federal military, they wanted each state to run their own military. The founders didn't want a strong federal government, they wanted to states to be highly sovereign. The founders put in the bill of rights to limit the federal government's actions, not state government actions. The government completely changed after the civil war with the 14th amendment. The constitution was written primarily to limit the powers of the federal government. States were free to put, for example, requirements on religion to run for office. McDonald v. Chicago would have been appalling to the founders, because it's the federal government trampling over the rights of a state government.
- maxwell 5y ago
  I agree on divining intent, but I'm not aware of any founder endorsing any form of arms control. I'd be interested to see any references suggesting otherwise. Are you aware of any meaningful debate on what became the Second? I'm mostly going off Jefferson's "tree of liberty" letter [1], maybe there was dissent amongst other founders? As far as federal vs. state military, I dunno, references? Each state would have their own navy...? Doesn't seem to fit with Jefferson's willingness to launch a preemptive strike on African pirates at the beginning of his presidency [2]. Agreed on strong states, hence the Tenth, and the impact of the Fourteenth, though I'm actually currently trying to get a better handle on that one (e.g. not entirely clear on equal protection yet). Disagree on McDonald, doesn't seem like the design allows for states to pass laws that take away rights explicitly enumerated in the federal Constitution. States can "exceed" enumerated rights (like California's affirmative right to free speech), but can't cancel them out. Any sources suggesting otherwise? 1. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html#105 https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html#105 2. https://www.city-journal.org/html/jefferson-versus-muslim-pirates-13013.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/jefferson-versus-muslim-pi...