Most of America believes in some form of gun control. It's the outright bans that are contentious.
Shooting in Portland
- Thread starter SuperMatt
- Start date
Most of America believes in some form of gun control. It's the outright bans that are contentious.
Eric
Mama's lil stinker
Biden coming out swinging.
U
User.45
Guest
There is an estimate of 400,000,000 guns in civilian possession. 2M registered.
Can someone explain to me how this fits into the "well-regulated militia" narrative?
The 2nd Amendment is a bit badly written, in that it opens up with specific intentions, but then defines itself broadly.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Okay, so it's about militias.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
But anyone can buy a gun, and congress can't do much about it without very compelling reasoning.
Still, it's not an unlimited right. Measures can be taken to ensure the welfare and safety of the community at large. Also, it doesn't mean you're allowed to take your gun anywhere you want to. If you go into Wal-Mart with a couple of AR15's strapped to your back, and it makes the rest of the customers uncomfortable, you can be told to leave without it being considered an infringement upon your rights.
But, generally speaking, if you want a gun, you can get a gun.
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
tbh what crossed my mind was "gee your moms must be proud." Then I did a reality check and sighed, because maybe some of their moms would actually have been proud. Ugh.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
That part of the amendment has been completely ignored by conservatives on the Supreme Court because they seem unable to figure out what it means. They also seem to forget that "arms" at the time were muskets, not M-16s.
I have an especially rude version of that saying I save for very special occasions.
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
I'm not gonna ask and it's past my bedtime so feel free... g'night!
I'd tell you anyway, but no. I want it to be a surprise for someone annoying I really don't like. I'm saving it.
...and no, I won't use it on JK. He's a good guy, even if he is annoying. It's like having a best friend who's also crabs.
Though I did use it at Ars Technica one time. Actually got a mod to pop in and go "dude, not cool!" That's how I know it's brutal.
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
You got ding'd at Ars? Ok then, maybe spare us that saying, might fry the servers here.
It was Aurich. Think I made a lot of people cry that day.
Lostngone
Power User
- Posts
- 107
- Reaction score
- 93
What exactly is lawfully obtained? Why do I need a permit to legally carry a firearm? Do you need a permit/license to vote? Do you need a permit/license to speak freely? Thankfully where I live I can safely carry a firearm concealed or otherwise without having to ask someone if it’s okay to exercise my constitutional rights.
Some places you need an ID to vote.
Some places do require you to contact your local courthouse, and set up a date if you're planning on throwing down a big shindig on public property.
Yoused
up
The police continue to make their case. In a better world/country, police amassed to deal with a protest would be disarming the people walking around bristling with weapons. All the weapons, including those pool-noodle mayhem sticks. Instead, they form a line like some kind of battlefield battalion, thank the right-wing assholes for showing up ready to fight, and wait for some slightest excuse to call it a riot.
You see, the police require a balance of chaos, in general, to justify their own existence. They cannot stifle crime, because then people would think they were unnecessary, so they create an environment where crime will be inevitable and then go look like they are dealing with it. You add more police and somehow that fails to improve the situation, because they are making sure that there will still be enough crime to support them.
Yes, some crazy guy killed some other crazy guy. He was wrong to do that. But the ultimate responsibility falls on the people who should have been trying to de-escalate the situation for the past three months but have only been making it worse and making themselves look like craven idiots. These are the idiots that the protesters are protesting about.
You see, the police require a balance of chaos, in general, to justify their own existence. They cannot stifle crime, because then people would think they were unnecessary, so they create an environment where crime will be inevitable and then go look like they are dealing with it. You add more police and somehow that fails to improve the situation, because they are making sure that there will still be enough crime to support them.
Yes, some crazy guy killed some other crazy guy. He was wrong to do that. But the ultimate responsibility falls on the people who should have been trying to de-escalate the situation for the past three months but have only been making it worse and making themselves look like craven idiots. These are the idiots that the protesters are protesting about.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
What is up with this? It’s actually easier to get a gun than it is to vote. Maybe this country prefers violence to democracy.
U
User.45
Guest
I just brought it up because to me it is clear that a country that can give a gun to every man, woman and child, is unsafe because people who shouldn't have guns can have them. And guns are not like a magical equalizer that if distribution evenly would make things safe. All the statistics are there to confirm the opposite.
Now the constitution is awkwardly worded on this at best, but to me the word well-regulated is key (I know this more meant like set in a militaristic fashion with training).
It is fucking insane that in states like Kentucky or Ohio, a 17-year-old could legally possess an AR-15 if they got it as a gift.
It's fucking insane that annually there are hundreds of thousands of guns getting stolen and criminals use these.
One the most insane things I've ever had to do for my job is to figure out how to remove the guns from the home of a guy with aggressive, psychotic behavior due to his dementia. Why?
Why do people need assault rifles? What's the bona fide need for an assault rifle?
These are rhetorical questions. But these tell you why the USA is so unappealing from a European perspective. Murder rate is lower in almost every single nation in Europe compared to the USA and shootings are extremely rare. Avoidance works well against knives. Not so much against bullets.
/rant over
Can we return to the well-regulated militia for a moment? At present, only about 30 states still have them. They are the descendants of the original militias and work directly under the states governor and TAG as a force multiplier for the National Guard. They have been kept because so often the NG has been federalize and moved abroad, leaving the states with no one to perform the duties of the NG in their absence, whether its armory maintenance or cleaning up after a natural disaster (hurricane, tornado, fire, etc.).
The majority of state militias are not armed. IIRC, the only group I ever worked with that was authorized to carry was the Texas State Guard. (Texas, of course.) That was probably because those guys (and gals) would have felt naked without their sidearms.
The majority of state militias are not armed. IIRC, the only group I ever worked with that was authorized to carry was the Texas State Guard. (Texas, of course.) That was probably because those guys (and gals) would have felt naked without their sidearms.
Right, that comma does a huge amount of work.
The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," has been increasingly read as a preface.
Well, in fairness, they also wrote the First Amendment with movable type and horse-riders delivering mail, so I'm not too sure about this analogy. Arguably, the M-16 is a modern arm. However, the courts have to reason that the right is not unlimited.
The courts have repeatedly understood that minor restrictions can be employed to our rights without directly infringing on them, especially if they are employed evenly. So, you cannot launch a protest in the White House lobby at 4 a.m., because time and place matter.
So, too do we allow some restrictions to firearms that do not infringe on them. So, if arms are necessary to ensure a free state, those arms don't have to be on your person day-in and day-out. The right is not expansive, but rather limited to ownership. And, the states almost immediately limited the carrying of firearms at all hours because they understood that having every Thomas and George walking around with a musket on a day-to-day basis was a bad idea. Later, lots of western villages had restrictions on the carrying of firearms into town, and those were enforced by armed sheriffs.
Lostngone
Power User
- Posts
- 107
- Reaction score
- 93
Here we go again with “assault rifle”(s). An assault rifle is highly regulated and extremely expensive. I would say that maybe in the last 3 years they have been used a total of maybe 3 to 5 times during an actual crime. It is so rare I can’t even find statistics on it.
What is your need to vote or your need to speak freely in public where do you get off asking me why I need my constitutional rights.
Similar threads
