The word "militia" comes up time and time again in those founding documents. That the citizens should have access to arms as party of "a well regulated militia."

The modern interpretation of the second amendment has done away with the idea that a citizen ought to be a part of an organized militia to bear arms.

The founders of the US said other things too:

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

I imagine that Franklin thought the republic would need defending against other monarchies, not from large corporations who, after centuries of wealth concentration would, with a few lobby organizations like the NRA, become the de-facto unelected rulers of the land.

I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either.

Driving is considered a privilege and gun ownership is a right granted by the second amendment, so i don't think the two are comparable at this time. I'm all for making gun ownership a privilege, but assume that would entail amending/redefining or removing the second amendment. Someone correct me if i'm wrong about this.

No. While we're both wrong about their primary purpose (which after looking it up on their website is education and training people in firearms use), their other purpose is (from their about page):

"as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights"

https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

"Downvote for lying".

Oh really? Lol.

I've produced peer reviewed research supporting my views. StukaFox produced none.

There are opposing research papers of course (it is a contentious issue). But it takes a very short sighted person to produce a limited set of ABS data (lol, 2 years) and a Snopes article to declare that I'm wrong. Keep in mind I mentioned in my first comment that there were studies on this topic.

Thanks for that link -- really good.

I do think that "the left" is perhaps a bit too focused on specific weapon or accessory types. AR-15's, bump stocks, magazine sizes, etc. It's not completely ridiculous to say that if we banned AR-15's with 20-30 shot magazines, most of these shooters would just move on to the next best thing; maybe a Ruger Mini 14 or something with a 15 shot magazine.

Would that mitigate some of the deadly potential? Sure. Slightly. But it wouldn't prevent things at all, just (slightly) mitigate them. That might be worth doing, but it isn't beneficial enough to be what we should be focusing on.


I think two things could help contribute to prevention. Registration, and Licensing.

Step 1) Anyone who owns or purchases a firearm would be legally required to get it/them registered. Serial numbers (if they exist), etc. Anyway, descriptions of the weapon(s) on file and linked to a registered owner. If a firearm is used in a crime, the registered owner could be partially liable for that crime. Crime resulting in death? Owner subject to charges of negligent manslaughter. Violent crime, but no deaths? Owner subject to charges of conspiracy to commit X. Registered owner finds one or more of their firearms stolen or missing? Report them as such, and your liability could be removed or mitigated. Failure to register a firearm would also carry criminal penalties.

Step 2) Anyone who wants to use a firearm would be legally required to get a license. Licensing requires taking a proficiency and safety test. The initial license would require practical examination (safety and proficiency) at a range. Initial licensing and renewals (every 4 years?) would require passing a written test of knowledge about ownership laws, safety, etc. Just like a driver's license. And just like a driver's license, there could be things that might reasonably preclude your ability to get a license. Felony record? No license for you. Mental health issues? No license for you.


The NRA loves to tout themselves as responsible gun owners. Well, responsible people take responsibility. Remember that one kid in your class back in third grade that talked back to the teacher, so she made you all stay in and read during recess? Yeah, he ruined it for the rest of you. Guess what -- that's happening again. These nutjobs that shoot up schools or into a crowd of civilians are ruining things for the rest of you. We've tried unfettered access and an extremely lax interpretation of the second amendment. It didn't work out well. For evidence, compare the US to any other developed country on Earth.

Guns are a part of American culture, to an extent that taking them away completely would be ... problematic. But there are many, many things between the nothing that we're doing now and that.

Wallets, and cell phones, hair brushes, glasses cases, envelopes, small boxes, sticks, juice boxes, seat belts, toy trucks, cigarettes, cigars .....pretty much anything you can hold in your hand.
A better idea is just ban hands. No hands, you know there's no gun in their hands, problem solved. Then you don't even have to touch the second amendment to end gun violence, guns are pretty safe without fingers.
Glad that issue is resolved.

The thing about bump stocks that people are not realizing is that they are simply a mod that allows you to do the same thing you could already do with many semi-automatic weapons, emulate automatic fire.

There is a slightly more dangerous method which can be done simply by not bracing the stock and using the pistol grip. Many semi-auto weapons also can easily be 'broken' to cause slamfires, where the rounds are auto-fired as soon as they are loaded due to a stuck firing pin.

I highly believe in gun rights and the second amendment. But this latest tragedy has finally done it. There is simply no need to have that many semi-automatic rifles in one's possession. We need to re-enact the AWB from 1994, we need to set a cap limit on how many semi-automatic rifles a person can own, and we need to clearly state that ANY modification that can simulate automatic fire is illegal.

We have fostered a state where the mentally ill are no longer being treated or taken care of, except by drugs. Since it is clear that we have multitudes of people separated from becoming the next mass murderer simply based on whether to not they took their meds (or were diagnosed correctly to begin with), we need to make a stricter environment that prevents these people from getting the weapons to make it easier.

The cop had every opportunity to check with Charlie. Another safety issue for the cops? Going to a house they don't know? In that neighborhood?

And crappy as it is, he was resisting. Don't yell at a cop. Even when they are dead wrong. Just don't. Unfortunately that is just the way it is. Life isn't fair. And I know it is on top of hundreds of years of unfairness. And still. Tug your forelock, look at the ground, seethe inside. And you don't get arrested.

"You can't do that." Yes, unfortunately they can.

Did you hear what the female officer said at the very end? She told a fellow officer to "watch your back" when a car pulled up. Why? Because they might have a gun. These officers do live in fear for their own lives -- because we insist on "second amendment rights" and our streets are flooded with guns.

And does anyone think that the female officer was in the wrong here? She tried to calm everything down. She had no control over the cop who freaked when he thought the scary black man was calling on his friends to show up. And she resigned, lost her job, lost her income. I think she did the best she could under the circumstances.

Saying your opponents statements are "unfortunate" and have "no place in this campaign" is a far cry from thousands in your own party including hundreds of elected officials and those who previously publicly gave their support saying your statements are "criminal threats" are "dangerous" and "clearly inciting violence" and "have absolutely no place in American politics or America at all".

In Trump's scenario, Clinton was already president and already installing her judges....no voting possible...."nothing you can do", no vote to make by anyone...."except the second amendment people"....who also can't vote against her at that time. Absolutely no implication for voting her out.

Boom!

Obama seemed to think so... "It was described by the New York Times as “one of the worst days” of her career, and the Obama campaign said the remarks were “unfortunate” and had “no place in this campaign." Boom...

And also, what the fuck? Maybe the second amendment people take her out--at the voting booths and vote for him? There was the implication for that. Bad implication. He didnt mean it. But it is there.

"I thought it was illegal to hint that people should kill a President, even if you are joking."

She's not a president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States

"Trump Jokes That Gun Owners Can 'Fix' the Clinton Problem"

Here is what he said:
"By the way, and if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people maybe there is, I don't know."

He said "maybe there is" something that they (the 2nd Amendment people) can do - but he doesn't know. Pure weasel words.

Considering they are weasel words, I see an awful lot of reading into them.

It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

OK, you could make that argument about the first amendment, even though the supreme court has ruled “Child pornography, defamation and inciting crimes are just a few examples of speech that has been determined to be illegal under the U.S. Constitution.”, and there's also the "clear and present danger" exception as written in 1919 by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. -“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”
The decision says the First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech that is likely to cause immediate harm to others. Because the court is the legal interpreter of the constitution, it's not neglect, it's judicial interpretation. The buck stops at the Supreme Court.

But the second amendment, the topic, STARTS with "A WELL REGULATED militia...", so clearly regulations limiting/regulating firearm ownership and use was exactly what they intended from the start....no?

To address your points

"Did you even read the article I linked?"
Sorry, I didn't. I opened it, but I really don't have time to read a 40-page law review article.

"In other words, you're flat out wrong when you say the 2nd amendment wasn't about self-defense".
Ok, we can agree to disagree there, but the point still stands that the statement "The WHOLE point of the second amendment... is so we can defend ourselves" (emphasis mine) is incorrect. I'll grant you it might be PART of it.

"I'm not sure why your tone is so dismissive in this thread."
Because I'm tired of trying to convince Americans to stop murdering each other.

"you're quite lucky to live in a country where your government protects you from growing your own food by throwing all those dangerous gardeners in prison. "
Please tell me you realise that's satire because your tone kinda makes me think you're taking that seriously. No, gardens are not illegal in NZ. Almost everyone I know grows some of their own food (at least, those of us lucky enough to afford a house with a garden).

"New Zealand has a shit-ton of guns (about one for every four people)"
Agreed. I even previously brought this up myself.

"people own them for a variety of reasons, from sport"
I know, I have friends who target shoot and hunt

"to self-defense"
cue wrong buzzer sound effect.

To get a gun in NZ you need a Firearms licence. To get this , you will be interviewed, and

You will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:
...
indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

Have some people (shock, horror) lied to the cops to get a licence? Probably, but in general, no-one here actually wants a gun for self-defense.

Look, I have no problem with people using guns. I just think that maybe you could all stop fetishising them so much and realise that you live in the 21st century and not the old west.

Personally, I'm with Jim Jeffries on this one.
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jim-Jefferies-on-gun-control

I'm sure there have been any number of legal precedents set. Doesn't change the fact that the major point of the second amendment was not self-defense.

Besides, it's an anachronism. You can have all the guns you want, but you ain't defending shit if your (or another) government decides to go full Hitler.

Look, you're already not allowed bombs or RPGs or missiles or whatever, so your right to bear "arms" has been infringed.

Aside from the raving Alex Jones style lunatics, everyone already agrees that there are limits on the weapons available to civilians. So the second amendment isn't inviolate. It's just a question of degrees.

Besides, pretty sure the constitution has been changed before (14th and 21st most famously).

But again, I'm just glad I don't live in a country where people genuinely believe that they need a gun for home defense.

To understand the wording of the second amendment, you have to take into account the history behind it. I'm not sure how familiar you are with American history, but this scholarly article is a great read on the topic, and demonstrates that guns have been kept and regulated (the most important terms of the amendment that often get completely overlooked by guns rights advocates) by Americans for both personal and collective defense since the Colonial period.

It's important to note that the Revolutionary War was literally started at Lexington and Concord when the British government, "Came fer our gunz!" That event informs a great deal of the rhetoric, and it is not at all an exaggeration to say that had the British government successfully disarmed the populace earlier, the Revolution might never have had a chance for success.

Regardless, there are an overwhelming number of legal precedents now that support the notion that the Constitution allows guns to be owned by U.S. citizens for self-defense purposes. That horse has long been out of the barn, so arguing that the constitution does not specifically use the words "self-defense" is a complete waste of time. What is not a waste of time is arguing how far the government (state and federal) can go in "regulating" the sale, carrying, and use of firearms.