6 ms·

> Taking actions that indicate preparation for violent action The contradiction is that that’s literally the content and purpose of the 2A of the US Constituti

> Taking actions that indicate preparation for violent action The contradiction is that that’s literally the content and purpose of the 2A of the US Constitution. It’s not the right to bear arms for hunting deer, or the right to go target shooting. The language is pretty explicit, if it isn’t clear enough the founders took the time to explain the purpose of it in the Federalist Papers after they fought an armed revolution against their own government. My take on unstable people is that if you’re not stable enough to own guns you’re not stable enough to participate in society. If the person in this case made credible threats, they should charge him with a crime other than possession of a firearm accessory. There are plenty of other ways that deranged people hurt others (Like driving a vehicle into a christmas market). The only way we can claim to live in a free society is by maintaining a system of due process.

stouset 2y ago
Does the second amendment authorize me to bear nuclear weapons? If no, you acknowledge there is a line. We’re allowed to bear arms, but not any and all arms. If yes, maybe your views are consistent but you’re utterly insane.
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  It should guarantee the right to carry the same weapon we give to 17 year kids in the military. Which is an M4 carbine. That would be the modern musket and more or less consistent with historic tradition.
  - stouset 2y ago
    You've conceded that there should be some limits. You think they should be at one point. I disagree. Since the second amendment itself doesn’t contain any express instructions as to who can bear which arms—which is a necessary consideration once you’ve accepted that everyone shouldn’t be able to bear every arm—we’re now solidly in the realm of political debate rather than second amendment absolutism.
    - jl6 2y ago
      2A people presumably think that even though there are some edge cases that are bad (citizens owning nuclear weapons), the risk of unintended consequences of legislating against these cases is too great given the small-to-nil occurrence of these cases in the real world.
      - stouset 2y ago
        I’m sure people thought the same thing back when fully automatic weapons were first invented. “Sure gosh but who is ever going to tow around a Gatling gun with them?” Nuclear weapons are an intentionally-absurd example to force a concession that there obviously must be limits. Frequently people will even acknowledge that the 2A probably doesn’t cover them (or at least oughtn’t be interpreted in a way that it does). From there it’s generally pretty easy to walk reasonable people backward towards MANPADs, and then further on down to things that aren’t quite so difficult to acquire.
        jl6 2y ago
        Sure, but there’s a gap between “this would be bad” and “we need to change the law to stop it happening”, so what you think of as a concession isn’t necessarily conceding anything at all.
ethbr1 2y ago
> The language is pretty explicit The literal text is ambiguous to a degree that commas change its meaning: >> 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. Relying on contemporaneous ancillary (and unratified with consensus) documents should be an obvious sign that textual clarity is lacking. Furthermore, the ability of an 18th century individual to craft weapons of mass destruction was vastly inferior to our modern access. > My take on unstable people is that if you’re not stable enough to own guns you’re not stable enough to participate in society. If the person in this case made credible threats, they should charge him with a crime other than possession of a firearm accessory. Not only stability! Just normal common sense. ~20% of English-proficient Americans can't do basic numerical tasks in English [0]. I wouldn't trust anyone that dumb around a loaded 6-lb trigger pull. As the aphorism goes, some people ain't got the sense God saw fit to give a squirrel. And while they and unstable people are fully entitled to live their lives however they want, it would behoove society at large to say 'Maybe we're not going to hand you things that require the highest amount of safety and carefulness.' But I'm from the generation where you started out firearms ownership with a hunter safety course at the local firehouse, followed by supervised use with your family, eventually progressing to independent use by high school. [0] https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020025.pdf https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020025.pdf
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  > ~20% of English-proficient Americans can't do basic numerical tasks in English [0] We don’t gatekeep rights based on someone’s perceived intelligence. The same logic was used to keep southern blacks from voting in the civil rights era and was promptly struck down. If you’re an American, it’s your inalienable right. > The literal text is ambiguous to a degree that commas change its meaning The people who wrote the amendment literally wrote essays explaining their thought process. It’s not like we’re deciphering ancient greek artifacts, we all know exactly what the founders meant when they wrote it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this extremely obvious interpretation.
potato3732842 2y ago
>My take on unstable people is that if you’re not stable enough to own guns you’re not stable enough to participate in society. I Exactly. Prison or full rights, guns, voting, living beside a school, all of it. Get rid of all this inbetween crap. Oh, the prisons are too crowded you say? Well perhaps criminalize less things.
- giantg2 2y ago
  "Oh, the prisons are too crowded you say? Well perhaps criminalize less things." We can also focus on actual rehabilitation or fewer heavy handed sentences for non-violent offenders. A lot of things that are currently prison sentences could potentially be probation and fines.
rat87 2y ago
The second amendment was to make sure the government could organize militias to put down armed rebellions, not to empower them. You may consider it hypocritical, but the vast majority of the founders ( Jefferson was an exception) were very very anti armed rebellion! That's the context for the Constitution replacing the articles of confederation. Having recently fought one they didn't think we needed any more revolutions and didn't want any more revolutions! And didn't appreciate several violent incidents like Shays rebellion. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/75z37x/what_was_going_on_in_america_that_caused_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/75z37x/what_... > Shays’ Rebellion was an armed uprising led by former Massachusetts militiamen and veterans of the American Revolution which took place between 1786 - 1787. Daniel Shays led several thousand ‘rebels" to fight against the economic injustices that were facing farmers and agrarian peasants all across America. (3) These farmers were experiencing extreme poverty following the end of the Revolutionary War. All across America, farmers saw their lands foreclosed on in unfair property seizures, and they wanted to fight back. They were also trying to fight taxes which were beginning to be levied against them.(4) People in rural American fought these perceived injustices in a few ways, with Shays' Rebellion being the most violent. Shays' Rebellion would ultimately be put down, but it startled the gentry who feared further uprisings throughout the United States. > While we call it a “rebellion" today, these men did not label themselves this way. They called themselves “regulators,” specifically they called themselves the “Massachusetts Regulation,” modeling off of the North Carolina Regulators that we saw just a moment ago.(5) This was the larger part of a trend of poor Americans fighting back against economic injustice. The idea of “civilian regulation” was catching on and becoming a popular idea for ending government corruption. They believed that if the government wasn't regulating itself on behalf of "We the People", then "the People" had the right to regulate, or take back the government – to take it back and do what they believed was right. They didn't see themselves as a rebellion, but rather the gentry labeled them as such in order to de-legitimize their cause. By calling them "rebels," neutral Americans would see these men as insurgents who needed to be stopped. But this regulation was not the only type of fighting Americans across the country participated in. Many states saw widespread revolts ... > By the time the the constitutional convention convened, America was under extreme duress. In Terry Bouton's article "A Road Closed: Rural Insurgency in Post-Independence Pennsylvania" he masterfully explained the fighting and rebellion that took place in the rural country sides of Pennsylvania that mirrored what had happened in Massachusetts.(7) The gentry were terrified that they were losing control of rural America, and as a result they would not be able to seize foreclosed land and collect taxes, which they needed. Empowering militias to be trained and carry firearms allowed the gentry to call up these men in times of need and suppress these rebellions that were taking place. The Founders knew that the only solutions were to call up militias as they had done in North Carolina and Massachusetts. ... > Multiple other bills of rights from other states had already protected a militia's right to bear arms (such as Section 13 of Virginia's Declaration of Rights) and many of these states were fighting to have the federal government protect this as well. Here their declaration stated: > > SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.(8) > This wording is even more carefully crafted then in the national Bill of Rights. Here, they define “well-regulated” meaning they were trained my military officers. You also see that they define the purpose of it as being necessary to “defend” the state (implying against people in rebellion) and they of course explain why they feared a standing Army. Now if you examine the wording of the Second Amendment, we can see some clear similarities: > > 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. > Like in Virginia, “well regulated" is the key phrase. They are referring to militias led by people like Benjamin Lincoln and his Massachusetts Militia, not Shays and his "rebellion". The idea that people need firearms to protect themselves from the government is not accurate. It was a message propagated by anti-gun control advocates of the 1980s. This “right” was crafted when rebellions were happening everywhere and the only way the government could maintain control was to make sure they could call up their militias.

stouset 2y ago

Does the second amendment authorize me to bear nuclear weapons? If no, you acknowledge there is a line. We’re allowed to bear arms, but not any and all arms. If yes, maybe your views are consistent but you’re utterly insane.

oceanplexian 2y ago
It should guarantee the right to carry the same weapon we give to 17 year kids in the military. Which is an M4 carbine. That would be the modern musket and more or less consistent with historic tradition.
- stouset 2y ago
  You've conceded that there should be some limits. You think they should be at one point. I disagree. Since the second amendment itself doesn’t contain any express instructions as to who can bear which arms—which is a necessary consideration once you’ve accepted that everyone shouldn’t be able to bear every arm—we’re now solidly in the realm of political debate rather than second amendment absolutism.
  - jl6 2y ago
    2A people presumably think that even though there are some edge cases that are bad (citizens owning nuclear weapons), the risk of unintended consequences of legislating against these cases is too great given the small-to-nil occurrence of these cases in the real world.
    - stouset 2y ago
      I’m sure people thought the same thing back when fully automatic weapons were first invented. “Sure gosh but who is ever going to tow around a Gatling gun with them?” Nuclear weapons are an intentionally-absurd example to force a concession that there obviously must be limits. Frequently people will even acknowledge that the 2A probably doesn’t cover them (or at least oughtn’t be interpreted in a way that it does). From there it’s generally pretty easy to walk reasonable people backward towards MANPADs, and then further on down to things that aren’t quite so difficult to acquire.
      - jl6 2y ago
        Sure, but there’s a gap between “this would be bad” and “we need to change the law to stop it happening”, so what you think of as a concession isn’t necessarily conceding anything at all.

ethbr1 2y ago

> The language is pretty explicit The literal text is ambiguous to a degree that commas change its meaning: >> 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. Relying on contemporaneous ancillary (and unratified with consensus) documents should be an obvious sign that textual clarity is lacking. Furthermore, the ability of an 18th century individual to craft weapons of mass destruction was vastly inferior to our modern access. > My take on unstable people is that if you’re not stable enough to own guns you’re not stable enough to participate in society. If the person in this case made credible threats, they should charge him with a crime other than possession of a firearm accessory. Not only stability! Just normal common sense. ~20% of English-proficient Americans can't do basic numerical tasks in English [0]. I wouldn't trust anyone that dumb around a loaded 6-lb trigger pull. As the aphorism goes, some people ain't got the sense God saw fit to give a squirrel. And while they and unstable people are fully entitled to live their lives however they want, it would behoove society at large to say 'Maybe we're not going to hand you things that require the highest amount of safety and carefulness.' But I'm from the generation where you started out firearms ownership with a hunter safety course at the local firehouse, followed by supervised use with your family, eventually progressing to independent use by high school. [0] https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020025.pdf https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020025.pdf

oceanplexian 2y ago
> ~20% of English-proficient Americans can't do basic numerical tasks in English [0] We don’t gatekeep rights based on someone’s perceived intelligence. The same logic was used to keep southern blacks from voting in the civil rights era and was promptly struck down. If you’re an American, it’s your inalienable right. > The literal text is ambiguous to a degree that commas change its meaning The people who wrote the amendment literally wrote essays explaining their thought process. It’s not like we’re deciphering ancient greek artifacts, we all know exactly what the founders meant when they wrote it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this extremely obvious interpretation.

potato3732842 2y ago

>My take on unstable people is that if you’re not stable enough to own guns you’re not stable enough to participate in society. I Exactly. Prison or full rights, guns, voting, living beside a school, all of it. Get rid of all this inbetween crap. Oh, the prisons are too crowded you say? Well perhaps criminalize less things.

giantg2 2y ago
"Oh, the prisons are too crowded you say? Well perhaps criminalize less things." We can also focus on actual rehabilitation or fewer heavy handed sentences for non-violent offenders. A lot of things that are currently prison sentences could potentially be probation and fines.

rat87 2y ago

The second amendment was to make sure the government could organize militias to put down armed rebellions, not to empower them. You may consider it hypocritical, but the vast majority of the founders ( Jefferson was an exception) were very very anti armed rebellion! That's the context for the Constitution replacing the articles of confederation. Having recently fought one they didn't think we needed any more revolutions and didn't want any more revolutions! And didn't appreciate several violent incidents like Shays rebellion. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/75z37x/what_was_going_on_in_america_that_caused_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/75z37x/what_... > Shays’ Rebellion was an armed uprising led by former Massachusetts militiamen and veterans of the American Revolution which took place between 1786 - 1787. Daniel Shays led several thousand ‘rebels" to fight against the economic injustices that were facing farmers and agrarian peasants all across America. (3) These farmers were experiencing extreme poverty following the end of the Revolutionary War. All across America, farmers saw their lands foreclosed on in unfair property seizures, and they wanted to fight back. They were also trying to fight taxes which were beginning to be levied against them.(4) People in rural American fought these perceived injustices in a few ways, with Shays' Rebellion being the most violent. Shays' Rebellion would ultimately be put down, but it startled the gentry who feared further uprisings throughout the United States. > While we call it a “rebellion" today, these men did not label themselves this way. They called themselves “regulators,” specifically they called themselves the “Massachusetts Regulation,” modeling off of the North Carolina Regulators that we saw just a moment ago.(5) This was the larger part of a trend of poor Americans fighting back against economic injustice. The idea of “civilian regulation” was catching on and becoming a popular idea for ending government corruption. They believed that if the government wasn't regulating itself on behalf of "We the People", then "the People" had the right to regulate, or take back the government – to take it back and do what they believed was right. They didn't see themselves as a rebellion, but rather the gentry labeled them as such in order to de-legitimize their cause. By calling them "rebels," neutral Americans would see these men as insurgents who needed to be stopped. But this regulation was not the only type of fighting Americans across the country participated in. Many states saw widespread revolts ... > By the time the the constitutional convention convened, America was under extreme duress. In Terry Bouton's article "A Road Closed: Rural Insurgency in Post-Independence Pennsylvania" he masterfully explained the fighting and rebellion that took place in the rural country sides of Pennsylvania that mirrored what had happened in Massachusetts.(7) The gentry were terrified that they were losing control of rural America, and as a result they would not be able to seize foreclosed land and collect taxes, which they needed. Empowering militias to be trained and carry firearms allowed the gentry to call up these men in times of need and suppress these rebellions that were taking place. The Founders knew that the only solutions were to call up militias as they had done in North Carolina and Massachusetts. ... > Multiple other bills of rights from other states had already protected a militia's right to bear arms (such as Section 13 of Virginia's Declaration of Rights) and many of these states were fighting to have the federal government protect this as well. Here their declaration stated: > > SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.(8) > This wording is even more carefully crafted then in the national Bill of Rights. Here, they define “well-regulated” meaning they were trained my military officers. You also see that they define the purpose of it as being necessary to “defend” the state (implying against people in rebellion) and they of course explain why they feared a standing Army. Now if you examine the wording of the Second Amendment, we can see some clear similarities: > > 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. > Like in Virginia, “well regulated" is the key phrase. They are referring to militias led by people like Benjamin Lincoln and his Massachusetts Militia, not Shays and his "rebellion". The idea that people need firearms to protect themselves from the government is not accurate. It was a message propagated by anti-gun control advocates of the 1980s. This “right” was crafted when rebellions were happening everywhere and the only way the government could maintain control was to make sure they could call up their militias.