7 ms·

It is an ideologically driven belief that "dirty civilians" don't deserve firearms, and any reason to deny them access should be used.

by pc86 2y ago

lukan 2y ago
This is not about the right to have firearms, but the right to carry them concealed, which is not exactly the same.
- pc86 2y ago
  To "bear" means to carry. "You may have this firearm but you cannot carry it in a manner which is fit for purpose anywhere other than your own private property" is a pretty tough sell to anyone who believes in the second amendment.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    But that would comport with the 2nd's militia concept: guns owned and kept for militia use in times of emergency, not everyday carry.
    - pc86 2y ago
      I'm happy to get into a 2A debate (as funny as it sounds it is a hobby of mine!) but it seems like a tangent for this thread specifically. I'll just say that this definition of "militia" is completely incorrect in the historical context in which it was written. The next thing you'll say is that "well-regulated" means regulated by the government which is also 100% incorrect. Militia is the people - it's everyone, individually. Well-regulated means well-functioning, fit for purpose. In order for individual people to be fit for militia/defensive service, they cannot be deprived of their right to make, purchase, own, use, and/or carry firearms. My favorite quote related to this: "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." - George Mason, address to Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > I'll just say that this definition of "militia" is completely incorrect in the historical context in which it was written. That's also true for the definition of arms. You can define "militia" as "all the of-age white males" if we get to define "arms" as "muskets". Fair trade!
        pc86 2y ago
        I'm happy to debate or discuss this in good faith but this isn't a good faith argument. "Arms" meant (means) state-of-the-art, military-level hardware. The muskets that civilians had in their homes were as good or better than what you'd be issued by the burgeoning American military, to the extent that you were issue anything and weren't just expected to bring your own. Throughout all of American history, perhaps with the exception of nuclear arms and vehicles like tanks and submarines, firearms research and development has occurred in private industry and made its way into the military later.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The muskets that civilians had in their homes were as good or better than what you'd be issued by the burgeoning American military... Probably not cannons and grapeshot, though.
        pc86 2y ago
        Took me 10 seconds on Google: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/29/joe-biden/joe-bidens-dubious-claim-about-revolutionary-war-c/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/29/joe-biden/... But the specifics are irrelevant, the spirit is clear. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Sam Adams, address to Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Took me 10 seconds on Google... Finding an article that says, essentially, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, and then goes on to talk about government licensed privateers - akin to the modern setup of a security guard licensed to carry in a state that doesn't otherwise permit it. Is there evidence outside of that of personal home ownership of cannons? (Let alone of a widespread nature?) Do we think Sam Adams would advocate personal ownership of nuclear bombs, or do we think he'd perhaps see such things as a category slightly different than the muskets of his time?
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      Except that is not the definition of the Second Amendment according to US Supreme Court case law.
      - enragedcacti 2y ago
        So can we safely assume that in 2007 you were steadfastly in support of the constitutionality of regulating weapons that fall outside of reasonable use in a Militia as in US v. Miller? Or does your complete and total deference to case law only go in one direction?
        ang_cire 2y ago
        Per Miller: > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is *not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment*, or that its use *could contribute to the common defense*. If you point to Miller, it becomes clear that military weapons were more acceptable for personal ownership under their interpretation of the 2A than a sawed-off shotgun, which was considered only useful for crimes when the NFA was passed (similar to other "concealable" arms). Consequently, the common refrain that "well-regulated militia" now implies something like the National Guard, would thus also imply that in fact it's more reasonable to privately own a tank or fighter jet than a suppressor. I don't think that most anti-2A advocates really understand that our current legislative limits on gun ownership are about as restrictive as they can be. Amend the 2A if you like (and it probably should be, even if only for clarity), but don't try to amend history. There is no textual interpretation of the 2A that would not allow for private firearm ownership. Every state constitution that directly preceded the Federal US constitution had a section that said some variation of: > "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." That specific quote came from Pennsylvania's constitution (Article 13), which was a Quaker colony at the time, that was much less friendly to firearms than other states, but even they explicitly spelled out the right to arms for personal defense. Heller (2008) reaffirmed this. That we have the largest standing army on Earth now would be horrifying to the founders, because they knew exactly the kind of Imperialism and Authoritarianism that follows, as opposed to a muster-able militia. As Huey Newton noted: "Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment." > So can we safely assume that in 2007 you were steadfastly in support of the constitutionality of regulating weapons that fall outside of reasonable use in a Militia Yes, absolutely. I don't think that, for instance, anyone should own chemical weapons, or weapons like cluster munitions. Generally, any weapon that you would not deploy defensively in a conflict should not be in the hands of a defensive force (the citizenry/ militia). I don't think anyone should have nukes, period, but that's a different discussion.
    - agensaequivocum 2y ago
      These two threads have many sources showing the individual right was not the prevailing understanding, but that it was taken for granted. https://x.com/2aHistory/status/1712209761171612093 https://x.com/2aHistory/status/1712209761171612093 https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056 https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056
- potato3732842 2y ago
  You're not wrong but with all the other laws surrounding firearms in public and in vehicles not being able to have a concealed carry permit is a huge practical impediment to exercising one's rights.
th0ma5 2y ago
Probably also Wilhoit's law some too "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." So not only do some people not get the right to own a gun effectively, but specifically certainly kinds of people arbitrarily.
- pc86 2y ago
  Yeah I would be very interested in the demographic makeup of those people who were checked in this database compared to those who weren't. Maybe cross-referenced with who accepted/reviewed/received their application. Maybe nothing but perhaps very interesting.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  There has been documented corruption and abuse in basically every state that uses a "may-issue" firearms permit scheme that allows official "discretion" about "suitability," as opposed to a "shall-issue" one where issuing a permit is mandatory to anyone who meets the qualifications.
  - favorited 2y ago
    California has been a shall-issue state since 2022, when Bruen made may-issue unconstitutional.
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      Theoretically all states are shall issue because of that case. In practice they just went from handing out definitive "no, you can't, because I feel like it" denials as was their discretion to soft denial via bureaucratic runaround.

It is an ideologically driven belief that "dirty civilians" don't deserve firearms, and any reason to deny them access should be used.

by pc86 2y ago

It is an ideologically driven belief that "dirty civilians" don't deserve firearms, and any reason to deny them access should be used.

lukan 2y ago

This is not about the right to have firearms, but the right to carry them concealed, which is not exactly the same.

pc86 2y ago
To "bear" means to carry. "You may have this firearm but you cannot carry it in a manner which is fit for purpose anywhere other than your own private property" is a pretty tough sell to anyone who believes in the second amendment.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  But that would comport with the 2nd's militia concept: guns owned and kept for militia use in times of emergency, not everyday carry.
  - pc86 2y ago
    I'm happy to get into a 2A debate (as funny as it sounds it is a hobby of mine!) but it seems like a tangent for this thread specifically. I'll just say that this definition of "militia" is completely incorrect in the historical context in which it was written. The next thing you'll say is that "well-regulated" means regulated by the government which is also 100% incorrect. Militia is the people - it's everyone, individually. Well-regulated means well-functioning, fit for purpose. In order for individual people to be fit for militia/defensive service, they cannot be deprived of their right to make, purchase, own, use, and/or carry firearms. My favorite quote related to this: "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." - George Mason, address to Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > I'll just say that this definition of "militia" is completely incorrect in the historical context in which it was written. That's also true for the definition of arms. You can define "militia" as "all the of-age white males" if we get to define "arms" as "muskets". Fair trade!
      - pc86 2y ago
        I'm happy to debate or discuss this in good faith but this isn't a good faith argument. "Arms" meant (means) state-of-the-art, military-level hardware. The muskets that civilians had in their homes were as good or better than what you'd be issued by the burgeoning American military, to the extent that you were issue anything and weren't just expected to bring your own. Throughout all of American history, perhaps with the exception of nuclear arms and vehicles like tanks and submarines, firearms research and development has occurred in private industry and made its way into the military later.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The muskets that civilians had in their homes were as good or better than what you'd be issued by the burgeoning American military... Probably not cannons and grapeshot, though.
        pc86 2y ago
        Took me 10 seconds on Google: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/29/joe-biden/joe-bidens-dubious-claim-about-revolutionary-war-c/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/29/joe-biden/... But the specifics are irrelevant, the spirit is clear. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Sam Adams, address to Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Took me 10 seconds on Google... Finding an article that says, essentially, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, and then goes on to talk about government licensed privateers - akin to the modern setup of a security guard licensed to carry in a state that doesn't otherwise permit it. Is there evidence outside of that of personal home ownership of cannons? (Let alone of a widespread nature?) Do we think Sam Adams would advocate personal ownership of nuclear bombs, or do we think he'd perhaps see such things as a category slightly different than the muskets of his time?
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    Except that is not the definition of the Second Amendment according to US Supreme Court case law.
    - enragedcacti 2y ago
      So can we safely assume that in 2007 you were steadfastly in support of the constitutionality of regulating weapons that fall outside of reasonable use in a Militia as in US v. Miller? Or does your complete and total deference to case law only go in one direction?
      - ang_cire 2y ago
        Per Miller: > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is *not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment*, or that its use *could contribute to the common defense*. If you point to Miller, it becomes clear that military weapons were more acceptable for personal ownership under their interpretation of the 2A than a sawed-off shotgun, which was considered only useful for crimes when the NFA was passed (similar to other "concealable" arms). Consequently, the common refrain that "well-regulated militia" now implies something like the National Guard, would thus also imply that in fact it's more reasonable to privately own a tank or fighter jet than a suppressor. I don't think that most anti-2A advocates really understand that our current legislative limits on gun ownership are about as restrictive as they can be. Amend the 2A if you like (and it probably should be, even if only for clarity), but don't try to amend history. There is no textual interpretation of the 2A that would not allow for private firearm ownership. Every state constitution that directly preceded the Federal US constitution had a section that said some variation of: > "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." That specific quote came from Pennsylvania's constitution (Article 13), which was a Quaker colony at the time, that was much less friendly to firearms than other states, but even they explicitly spelled out the right to arms for personal defense. Heller (2008) reaffirmed this. That we have the largest standing army on Earth now would be horrifying to the founders, because they knew exactly the kind of Imperialism and Authoritarianism that follows, as opposed to a muster-able militia. As Huey Newton noted: "Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment." > So can we safely assume that in 2007 you were steadfastly in support of the constitutionality of regulating weapons that fall outside of reasonable use in a Militia Yes, absolutely. I don't think that, for instance, anyone should own chemical weapons, or weapons like cluster munitions. Generally, any weapon that you would not deploy defensively in a conflict should not be in the hands of a defensive force (the citizenry/ militia). I don't think anyone should have nukes, period, but that's a different discussion.
  - agensaequivocum 2y ago
    These two threads have many sources showing the individual right was not the prevailing understanding, but that it was taken for granted. https://x.com/2aHistory/status/1712209761171612093 https://x.com/2aHistory/status/1712209761171612093 https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056 https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290263299117056
potato3732842 2y ago
You're not wrong but with all the other laws surrounding firearms in public and in vehicles not being able to have a concealed carry permit is a huge practical impediment to exercising one's rights.

th0ma5 2y ago

Probably also Wilhoit's law some too "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." So not only do some people not get the right to own a gun effectively, but specifically certainly kinds of people arbitrarily.

pc86 2y ago
Yeah I would be very interested in the demographic makeup of those people who were checked in this database compared to those who weren't. Maybe cross-referenced with who accepted/reviewed/received their application. Maybe nothing but perhaps very interesting.
psunavy03 2y ago
There has been documented corruption and abuse in basically every state that uses a "may-issue" firearms permit scheme that allows official "discretion" about "suitability," as opposed to a "shall-issue" one where issuing a permit is mandatory to anyone who meets the qualifications.
- favorited 2y ago
  California has been a shall-issue state since 2022, when Bruen made may-issue unconstitutional.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Theoretically all states are shall issue because of that case. In practice they just went from handing out definitive "no, you can't, because I feel like it" denials as was their discretion to soft denial via bureaucratic runaround.