Why are you pro 2A? So maybe the gov will allow you to shoot a deer with a black powder rifle? You do know it is a restriction of the government, right?
A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides
- Thread starter VikingsGuy
- Start date
One of the reason I provided so many examples in the last century.
10 million obese people eating fast food every day isn't causality either. But it is a hell of a correlation.
Wonder why they didn't do all the genociding when their citizens had guns? Probably just a coincidence.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Of democracies with guns I think Switzerland is probably the best example.
There are some key differences between Switzerland and the US
1. It's ethnically and economically pretty homogenous
2. There is mandatory military service
3. It's culture is defensive, given it's history.
------------
In the US the 2A argument as we know it is very recent... 2000s
prior to that cases went way different.
United States v. Cruikshank said that the 2A didn't apply to individuals, and therefore it was legal for the paramilitary KKK to deprive freed slaves/black American's of their firearms. So 1875 America 2A didn't apply to black American's according to the supreme court.
United States v. Miller Essentially a firearm had to be for military use to have the 2A apply, and didn't apply carte blanche to all firearms.
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
Then there is the Mulford Act attempting to disarm the black panthers.
Point being we have about 20 years of the current outlook on the 2A and about 10 years of everyone having AR's.
--------
Sorry for the digression, here's my main point with Switzerland, the main issue the Swiss are worried about is being invaded. On this thread that's been mentioned very few times if any... who is going to invade us? The main context of the US 2A is inward defense against each other.
Personally, I'm not sure if everyone being armed against each other is good long term for democracy, doesn't exactly lead to spirted dialogue and compromise.
BackofBeyond
Well-known member
Nah... that went ad hominen.
Comment withdrawn.
Comment withdrawn.
drexal
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 4, 2021
- Messages
- 239
Yikes!!! I stepped away for a couple and I don't even know any more. Most of the "I believe in the 2nd but..." crowd is at a full-blown "I believe in all but the 2nd".
Doublecluck
Well-known member
It is the longest-standing government on the planet, so doesn't really feel like infancy - may be more like early-onset senility in its 60s
We can play word games with technical definitions, but ok, all the more reason to not be naive enough to think it’s not possible it will fail.
Things haven’t exactly been unicorns and daisies on the American democracy front lately.
I appreciate your response. I understand what the courts have said and that different groups have tried to restrict gun ownership from certain ethnicities, etc....
Looking at 2A as limiting the power of the government (which it does) it is clear and says it right here:
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.
2A doesn't give the government any power or the right to have a militia and never has. It says a militia is necessary for a free state and it restricts the government from infringing on the peoples' (citizens) right to bear arms. Meant that when it was written, means that now. Doesn't change if some academic attorneys try to change the meaning for their own agendas.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
A range of reasons not that dissimilar to the drafters and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights. Some wanted language that explicitly recited firearms for food collection and firearms for personal safety. Some wanted formal state militias to defend against a federal army. Some want the individual right to revolt against state or federal govt. To say there was one single reason for its drafting and ratification is just a poor reading of history. I believe to some extent a bit of each is found in its purpose.
Over time the relevance of these various rationals has waxed and waned. I don't think much about a constitutional right to kill food with a rifle in 2022 so I don't care too much about that angle, but can understand its importance in 1800. I think the state militias battling with the federal govt as an idea pretty much got put to bed by the civil war so don't think too much about that either. I do think about individual vs tyranny, but a quick read of our history shows that this is of minimal actual relevance in 2022 and so I don't sweat that angle either (but I would if I could get that nuke submarine I keep demanding). I do think personal protection is the one that has had the longest and most consistent import. From frontier families of the early 1800s to rural families in the 1950s to urban families of 2022. So if I look at this multifaceted right and ask why I call myself pro-2A it is mostly that. Not suprisingly, I am a huge fan of Scalia & Heller.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
You are getting it backward, for 180 years everyone knew what it meant and for the last 40 years a group of intellectuals has made a whole new view of it - one adopted by the modern NRA.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I believe in the writings of the drafters and ratifiers, its plain language (which sadly is ambiguous to any honest reading), and the SCOTUS ruling in Heller. I do not believe that the current history or vision of the 2A held out by the NRA is a fair or accurate representation of any of that.
So, most of the "I believe in the 2A and the cold dead hands approach to the issue" crowd is at a full-blown, "I believe in a recently edited view of history and a narrative regarding the 2A that meets my own liking"
SAJ-99
Well-known member
In a representative democracy there is no They. The people and the government are the same.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Hold on there - I am pretty sure the Bill of Rights guarantees me the right to "name and blame" as I see fit. It is the government (which is us), it is the corporations (which is us), it is labor unions (which is us), it is organized religion (which is us), it is the environmental groups (which is us), it is . . . . . . [rinse and repeat]
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
To that point, 40 years ago is kinda when the "plastic crap" revolution started? Like kids toys/furniture ect.
Anyway, firearms are obviously a durable hard good, and it is interesting that we churning them out like no tomorrow. I'm sure l'm like most folks on the forum and have a safe with some of my grandfathers and great-grandfathers guns, luckily those generations had a different view towards stuff than we currently do so it's just a handful... but at the same time I got a bunch and I've added to that so my kids will get a pile.
Any I wonder if some GenZ folks are going to inherit like 20 glocks, and what super saturation of the market will do to the street availability of handguns.
2021 = 11.3 MM ... can't find 1960 would be interesting to see those numbers.
drexal
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 4, 2021
- Messages
- 239
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, 1788
Irrelevant
Well-known member
It is not clear, and furthermore you don't get to decide what it means per our constitution, so it is ONLY what the court says it is.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Sir this is the internet, I do ask that you don't question our credibility as constitution scholars.
I mean also we all get to vote, so if someone thinks it means something or should mean something they can try to get it amended.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
He also advised the MA and (later federal) government that those that took up those arms against the govt in Shay's rebellion and later the Whisky Rebellion had committed treason and should be hung. He clearly wrote that in his mind there is a distinction between taking up arms against a government that does not provide a vote and a representative democracy. He viewed that taking up arms in a democracy as merely taking up arms against your neighbors because you held a minority view - and this was not a proper use of arms. So I guess the only Americans that can use the 2A under his view are the residents of DC.
The truth is much less simple and convenient than the talking points.
drexal
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 4, 2021
- Messages
- 239
Where in any of that does it negate peaceable people from keeping arms?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
My goal is not to negate - it is to add context and nuance that is sadly lacking from most 2A discussions.
4ohSick
Well-known member
Similar threads
