3 ms·

I agree about the guns. The second amendment doesn't say "except felons". It says "shall not be infringed". Possibly, if there are enough armed felons running

by jfengel 9mo ago

I agree about the guns. The second amendment doesn't say "except felons". It says "shall not be infringed". Possibly, if there are enough armed felons running about, we might be able to get both sides to the table and admit that maybe there should be some limits. Until then it does us no good to exclude some groups just because we don't like them, while still enduring school shootings.

blacksmith_tb 9mo ago
It does mention "a well-regulated militia" though, and oddly legal gun owners don't belong to one of those.
- SloppyDrive 9mo ago
  The point about militia is a short statement for why the right to bear arms is important, rather than trying to restrict or qualify the right. The ability to form militias is so important, that everyone should have the right to bear arms, in order to enable this. The idea is that it prevents the idea of a "special militia" having some selection criteria, so the government of the day cant make qualifying for its group a requirement to own guns.
  - blacksmith_tb 9mo ago
    I agree, that clause is there to explain why. To my eye, Madison appears to have been thinking mostly about state militias versus a standing (national) army. We obviously don't muster any of those today, I suppose the closest we come is the National Guard.
- TheScaryOne 9mo ago
  "Well-regulated" in the context of 18th Century American English refers to the object's character, not to a system of regulations. You might say that a farmer runs a "well-regulated farm" because things run smoothly. Or that the windmill was a "well-regulated machine."
- ahazred8ta 9mo ago
  In 1700s terminology, the process of regulating (training) the militia has to take place after first gathering the 'irregular' militia, whose members bring their own weapons. This was established even in colonial times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_Movement_in_North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_Movement_in_North_Ca... You'll recall the Baker Street Irregulars, and Paul Revere's "You know the rest, in the books you have read, how the British Regulars fired and fled." The 2A's 'Arms' also covers non-gunpowder weapons. The right of the People to keep arms comes prior to issues related to their use.
- bigstrat2003 9mo ago
  The "well-regulated militia" bit is given as the rationale behind the amendment. That does not therefore mean that the right codified by the amendment only applies to those who are a part of a militia.
- tracker1 9mo ago
  According to the first militia act, which defines the militia ss every able bodied male over 18... everyone is required to own a firearm... yeah, it's a musket, but it was the most common weapon of the time, today it would likely be a 9mm handgun and an AR-15. It would also mean having regular meetups in your community to discuss any coordination necessary in times of emergency... Where to show up with your gun(s), who is in charge, who to communicate with, etc. I'd be a proponent of returning to this norm.

by jfengel 9mo ago

blacksmith_tb 9mo ago

It does mention "a well-regulated militia" though, and oddly legal gun owners don't belong to one of those.

SloppyDrive 9mo ago
The point about militia is a short statement for why the right to bear arms is important, rather than trying to restrict or qualify the right. The ability to form militias is so important, that everyone should have the right to bear arms, in order to enable this. The idea is that it prevents the idea of a "special militia" having some selection criteria, so the government of the day cant make qualifying for its group a requirement to own guns.
- blacksmith_tb 9mo ago
  I agree, that clause is there to explain why. To my eye, Madison appears to have been thinking mostly about state militias versus a standing (national) army. We obviously don't muster any of those today, I suppose the closest we come is the National Guard.
TheScaryOne 9mo ago
"Well-regulated" in the context of 18th Century American English refers to the object's character, not to a system of regulations. You might say that a farmer runs a "well-regulated farm" because things run smoothly. Or that the windmill was a "well-regulated machine."
ahazred8ta 9mo ago
In 1700s terminology, the process of regulating (training) the militia has to take place after first gathering the 'irregular' militia, whose members bring their own weapons. This was established even in colonial times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_Movement_in_North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_Movement_in_North_Ca... You'll recall the Baker Street Irregulars, and Paul Revere's "You know the rest, in the books you have read, how the British Regulars fired and fled." The 2A's 'Arms' also covers non-gunpowder weapons. The right of the People to keep arms comes prior to issues related to their use.
bigstrat2003 9mo ago
The "well-regulated militia" bit is given as the rationale behind the amendment. That does not therefore mean that the right codified by the amendment only applies to those who are a part of a militia.
tracker1 9mo ago
According to the first militia act, which defines the militia ss every able bodied male over 18... everyone is required to own a firearm... yeah, it's a musket, but it was the most common weapon of the time, today it would likely be a 9mm handgun and an AR-15. It would also mean having regular meetups in your community to discuss any coordination necessary in times of emergency... Where to show up with your gun(s), who is in charge, who to communicate with, etc. I'd be a proponent of returning to this norm.