4 ms·

This is part of why a sensible discussion cannot be had. "Shall not be infringed" has become axiomatic to many gun owners. Disclaimer: I am a gun owner. I like

This is part of why a sensible discussion cannot be had. "Shall not be infringed" has become axiomatic to many gun owners. Disclaimer: I am a gun owner. I like guns very much. Here's the 2A in full: "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." I am not a historian but I believe that this quote from James Madison in The Federalist Papers helps give some context to the second amendment: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." The idea is that a federalist country needs a power equalizer between states who wish to self-govern, and a federal government that seeks to grow its power. The gun ownership is tied to the idea of a well-regulated state militia, which we have now called the National Guard-- which is a reserve force of the US Military because in the Civil War we basically decided that a federal system was kind of stupid. All of this to say, the second amendment is not scripture from the hand of God. It is a law written with historical context from a different time, by men whose beliefs would disgust most people alive today. It's not Orwellian to discuss licenses or background checks, it's our modern society outgrowing laws from a bygone era.

wombat-man 4y ago
Not sure I agree that that's what the Civil War decided, since it ended with the federal government asserting its power. I am not a constitutional law expert, but the way the second amendment has been interpreted has become its meaning. At this point, I think what would have to happen is the 2nd amendment would need to be replaced with another amendment that better describes the limits on individuals rights to bear arms. Until then, these events will continue indefinitely. I simply do not believe that any SCOTUS would make a different decision.
- softcactus 4y ago
  When I say federal system I mean a system of having semi-autonomous governing regions (states). A centralized government is not a federal system, but the naming conventions make it confusing.
simon1ltd 4y ago
Except the National Guard are actually part of the Army, Navy and Air Force. "The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force when activated for federal missions." It may be organized by state, but it's a federal force. The 2A exists to give people tools to fight the government (or support it), it's not a gun fetish, it's literally a tool to empower citizens. If you doubt that people armed with rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatics can overcome the Worlds Biggest Armed Forces(tm), then look at the most recent example: Afghanistan (repelled the US -and- the USSR).
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Presumably in any situation where individually owned firearms were helpful in resisting the United States military, some significant portion of national guard members would also say “no thanks” when activated. After all, the United States military can already conscript individuals, so any hope of individual firearms being useful for resistance obvious assumes that individuals would say “no thanks” to conscription.
  - softcactus 4y ago
    I wish I could find the video but there was a great video by this Army infantryman who explained why there wouldn't be a splintering of the US military and why they would 100% kill US insurgents. Basically before shit hits the fan the National Guard would be mobilized and no longer receiving news. So if the government committed some horrible atrocity, they wouldn't hear it. Second let's say there's a Waco-style siege of an insurrectionist group holed up in a compound with families. Their briefing would say that "the insurrectionists fired on US troops and are using civilians as human shields" not "some of your fellow citizens and their families have rebelled against the tyrannical US government". Our military performs countless atrocities every day with almost zero defectors and yet for some reason people think that if they ever fought on US soil, they would begin falling out of line.
    - simon1ltd 4y ago
LoveGracePeace 4y ago
"National Guard-- which is a reserve force of the US Military" That is why anyone stating the National Guard is a standin for "well armed militia" is wrong..."a reserve force of the US Military" is not representative of the people; it is a protector of whomever is in power at any moment in the US.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
The Natty Guard = "well regulated malitia" argument is not compelling at all to me. If it was, the fact the guard can be nationalized and that states don't appoint officers unilaterally would be in strict contravention of how the constitution says the militias should be run. On top of that, the Bill of Rights is focused on rights of the people and states. IIRC there's nothing in it about protecting the "rights" of the federal government. Why would it need to explicitly give itself the right to arm its own standing army?
- softcactus 4y ago
  Yes the guard was nationalized in 1903 and runs counter to the idea of state militias. The Civil War was the end of the discussion about states needing a physical deterrent to keep the federal government out of their business.
makomk 4y ago
The general assumption of politically active gun owners in the US is that any attempt to regulate guns is a back-door route to try and outlaw gun ownership. This seems like an accurate assessment of how US gun politics actually works. Even consumer safety law intended to protect against dangerously defective products was used to push gun control under the pretext that firing reliably when called upon to do so was a dangerous defect - and now consumer safety law no longer applies to guns in the US because gun owners no longer trust the government with that power.

wombat-man 4y ago

Not sure I agree that that's what the Civil War decided, since it ended with the federal government asserting its power. I am not a constitutional law expert, but the way the second amendment has been interpreted has become its meaning. At this point, I think what would have to happen is the 2nd amendment would need to be replaced with another amendment that better describes the limits on individuals rights to bear arms. Until then, these events will continue indefinitely. I simply do not believe that any SCOTUS would make a different decision.

softcactus 4y ago
When I say federal system I mean a system of having semi-autonomous governing regions (states). A centralized government is not a federal system, but the naming conventions make it confusing.

simon1ltd 4y ago

Except the National Guard are actually part of the Army, Navy and Air Force. "The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force when activated for federal missions." It may be organized by state, but it's a federal force. The 2A exists to give people tools to fight the government (or support it), it's not a gun fetish, it's literally a tool to empower citizens. If you doubt that people armed with rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatics can overcome the Worlds Biggest Armed Forces(tm), then look at the most recent example: Afghanistan (repelled the US -and- the USSR).

tshaddox 4y ago
Presumably in any situation where individually owned firearms were helpful in resisting the United States military, some significant portion of national guard members would also say “no thanks” when activated. After all, the United States military can already conscript individuals, so any hope of individual firearms being useful for resistance obvious assumes that individuals would say “no thanks” to conscription.
- softcactus 4y ago
  I wish I could find the video but there was a great video by this Army infantryman who explained why there wouldn't be a splintering of the US military and why they would 100% kill US insurgents. Basically before shit hits the fan the National Guard would be mobilized and no longer receiving news. So if the government committed some horrible atrocity, they wouldn't hear it. Second let's say there's a Waco-style siege of an insurrectionist group holed up in a compound with families. Their briefing would say that "the insurrectionists fired on US troops and are using civilians as human shields" not "some of your fellow citizens and their families have rebelled against the tyrannical US government". Our military performs countless atrocities every day with almost zero defectors and yet for some reason people think that if they ever fought on US soil, they would begin falling out of line.
  - simon1ltd 4y ago

LoveGracePeace 4y ago

"National Guard-- which is a reserve force of the US Military" That is why anyone stating the National Guard is a standin for "well armed militia" is wrong..."a reserve force of the US Military" is not representative of the people; it is a protector of whomever is in power at any moment in the US.

Rebelgecko 4y ago

The Natty Guard = "well regulated malitia" argument is not compelling at all to me. If it was, the fact the guard can be nationalized and that states don't appoint officers unilaterally would be in strict contravention of how the constitution says the militias should be run. On top of that, the Bill of Rights is focused on rights of the people and states. IIRC there's nothing in it about protecting the "rights" of the federal government. Why would it need to explicitly give itself the right to arm its own standing army?

softcactus 4y ago
Yes the guard was nationalized in 1903 and runs counter to the idea of state militias. The Civil War was the end of the discussion about states needing a physical deterrent to keep the federal government out of their business.

makomk 4y ago

The general assumption of politically active gun owners in the US is that any attempt to regulate guns is a back-door route to try and outlaw gun ownership. This seems like an accurate assessment of how US gun politics actually works. Even consumer safety law intended to protect against dangerously defective products was used to push gun control under the pretext that firing reliably when called upon to do so was a dangerous defect - and now consumer safety law no longer applies to guns in the US because gun owners no longer trust the government with that power.