Minnesota's Proposed "Assault Weapon" Bans (2024)

[VikingsGuy]

"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".

It's pretty cut and dry to me.

Please define “Regulated Militia”.

Also note there were actually different versions ratified by different states with different punctuation. One of the most poorly written sections of the whole document.

What about the universal understanding in 1790s to the mid-1900s that bill of rights only effected federal laws?

Not cut and dried at all. Which is too bad, but just saying it doesn’t make it true.

 

[Lota lota]

Please define “Regulated Militia”.

Also note there were actually different versions ratified by different states with different punctuation. One of the most poorly written sections of the whole document.

What about the universal understanding in 1790s to the mid-1900s that bill of rights only effected federal laws?

Not cut and dried at all. Which is too bad, but just saying it doesn’t make it true.

According to the founders...the "Regulated Militia" is the citizens of U.S. It's one of the shortest amendments in the constitution (after the 8th amendment). I think they wrote it the way they did for a reason.

 

[VikingsGuy]

According to the founders...the "Regulated Militia" is the citizens of U.S. It's one of the shortest amendments in the constitution (after the 8th amendment). I think they wrote it the way they did for a reason.

I think they are smarter than to write so poorly and to have different versions ratified.

If they had universal clarity why not write the even shorter:

“The personal right to possess and use arms will not be restricted.”

If they meant it to apply to the states why not say that?

And to your initial remarks - where is there evidence that they were foreseeing future weapons developments?

Also, every single right in the Bill of Rights is subject to regulatory constraints- including the 1A.

Show me a single SCOTUS case that has ever said the Bill of Rights are absolute and inviolate.

I support 2A, but saying it is clear, simple, absolute and prescient is just silly. Why have we lost our ability to make our arguments without wrapping them in made up over simplifications of complex things. I blame twitter

 

[Treeshark]

“The personal right to possess and use arms will not be restricted.”

 

[BrentD]

You need to read more history, the founders were neither that aligned or claravoient.

I am a 2A supporter, but if the founders actually had their sh*t together on this topic they would have written a proper coherent sentence to cover it. Also, unlikely most had any interest in it covering state laws, as many of their own states had their own firearm rules.

I often wonder why they got this one amendment so muddled. Perhaps it is not an accident, but intentional. I would think it easy to write something scintillatingly clear, but perhaps they could not agree so a muddled statement was a "compromise" of sorts. I know of no evidence in support of such a hypothesis and the absence of contradicting evidence is a piss poor way to support any proposal, but why such an ambiguous statement?

 

[BrentD]

According to the founders...the "Regulated Militia" is the citizens of U.S. It's one of the shortest amendments in the constitution (after the 8th amendment). I think they wrote it the way they did for a reason.

Then why did they NOT say the "the people" as they did in 1A? And "the people" are not well regulated, almost by definition.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Loading…

www.cheaperthandirt.com

10, 20, 30, 40, 60, 100 rounders! Enjoy

Then why did they NOT say the "the people" as they did in 1A? And "the people" are not well regulated, almost by definition.

Think you are missing the context of regulated

 

[BrentD]

Loading…

www.cheaperthandirt.com

10, 20, 30, 40, 60, 100 rounders! Enjoy

Think you are missing the context of regulated

I don't think so. Explain.

You can make a claim that "militia" = the people, but it does not hold up in the wash. And you can claim that I just do not understand "militia" but you can also say the earth is flat. Does not make it so.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I don't think so. Explain.

You can make a claim that "militia" = the people, but it does not hold up in the wash. And you can claim that I just do not understand "militia" but you can also say the earth is flat. Does not make it so.

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Alexander Hamilton
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms in, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” – Thomas
Jefferson
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to
commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” – James Madison
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and
ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which
would include their own government." – George Washington
“Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” – Benjamin Franklin


The people who wrote it explained a lot already.

 

[VikingsGuy]

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Alexander Hamilton
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms in, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” – Thomas
Jefferson
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to
commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” – James Madison
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and
ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which
would include their own government." – George Washington
“Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” – Benjamin Franklin


The people who wrote it explained a lot already.

This is my point- you suggest that the above quotes are by the authors of the 2A, yet none of the above folks wrote it. Too many 2A supporters mix narratives. Heck, they weren’t even in Congress or the ratifying state legislatures at the time.

 

[BrentD]

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Alexander Hamilton
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms in, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” – Thomas
Jefferson
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to
commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” – James Madison
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and
ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which
would include their own government." – George Washington
“Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” – Benjamin Franklin


The people who wrote it explained a lot already.

Well a few of them did, at least. But they (the whole they - all 55 of them) did not write it where it counts. And I have to wonder why.

 

[Forkyfinder]

This is my point- you suggest that the above quotes are by the authors of the 2A, yet none of the above folks wrote it. Too many 2A supporters mix narratives. Heck, they weren’t even in Congress or the ratifying state legislatures at the time.

James Madison?

Well a few of them did, at least. But they (the whole they - all 55 of them) did not write it where it counts. And I have to wonder why.

"Shall not be infringed" seems clear. It was important enough to put second? Given they could own canons then but i need to do a dop-skip-jump govt process to own a gun muffler i think we have too many existing gun laws.

 

[BrentD]

James Madison?

"Shall not be infringed" seems clear. It was important enough to put second? Given they could own canons then but i need to do a dop-skip-jump govt process to own a gun muffler i think we have too many existing gun laws.

And we skip over that "well regulated militia" like it is not even there, eh?

Would 2A be less if it was 10th on the list, instead of 1st? This is a new idea to me. I didn't realize they were rankings.

 

[brownbear932008]

James Madison?

"Shall not be infringed" seems clear. It was important enough to put second? Given they could own canons then but i need to do a dop-skip-jump govt process to own a gun muffler i think we have too many existing gun laws.

But it's not clear or this argument would have been cleared up decades ago. I wish it were black and white. These men were wise beyond their years but, it's no way they could have seen the current state of affairs in this country at the time and, the advancement of technology that has occurred.

100% agree on the suppressor laws no doubt. The problem with that is changes to the NFA are far and few between since 1934. I'm still in shock DOJ released over 4,000 automatic firearms for transfer recently that were pre 86 sale samples.

 

[VikingsGuy]

James Madison?

"Shall not be infringed" seems clear. It was important enough to put second? Given they could own canons then but i need to do a dop-skip-jump govt process to own a gun muffler i think we have too many existing gun laws.

Madison wrote the first draft in the House, but that was dropped and revised several times and then further in the senate - Madison’s draft had verbiage about not compelling service in the militia for those with religious objections (quakers) - suggesting he viewed the language as a right to form a proper militia, not personal. But in the end that is not the language that was adopted so that doesn’t control.

As for 2nd in order that isn’t really relevant to the open questions as it may suggest importance or may suggest nothing, but in either case it doesn’t address personal vs state militia intent.

And even if it read unequivocally, “every person can have a gun for any reason” it still doesn’t mean there would be no guns controls, as every one of the rights under the bill of rights is subject to some infringements/regulation. So the question would still remain, how much is too much.

Personally I am fine with some current rules (felon restrictions for example) and not with others (suppressors under NFA is really stupid). But just like abortion this has become an all or nothing blood feud with little intelligent discussion possible. And in the case of guns - it is one we will almost certainly lose over time unless there is some moderation to regain suburban soccer mom support.

 

[MTGomer]

Would 2A be less if it was 10th on the list, instead of 1st?

yes. That’s why the right to say misogynist things is 19x more important than it is that women vote

(sarcasm font is on)

 

[Mallardsx2]

Leave it to an attorney to question the validity and the intentions of the constitution of the US. Lol

 

[brownbear932008]

Leave it to an attorney to question the validity and the intentions of the constitution of the US. Lol

Yes, but that's what makes life interesting. It has been quite the discussion though, with many good points thrown around, and even a bit of a history lesson. LOL

 

[Forkyfinder]

Madison wrote the first draft in the House, but that was dropped and revised several times and then further in the senate - Madison’s draft had verbiage about not compelling service in the militia for those with religious objections (quakers) - suggesting he viewed the language as a right to form a proper militia, not personal. But in the end that is not the language that was adopted so that doesn’t control.

As for 2nd in order that isn’t really relevant to the open questions as it may suggest importance or may suggest nothing, but in either case it doesn’t address personal vs state militia intent.

And even if it read unequivocally, “every person can have a gun for any reason” it still doesn’t mean there would be no guns controls, as every one of the rights under the bill of rights is subject to some infringements/regulation. So the question would still remain, how much is too much.

Personally I am fine with some current rules (felon restrictions for example) and not with others (suppressors under NFA is really stupid). But just like abortion this has become an all or nothing blood feud with little intelligent discussion possible. And in the case of guns - it is one we will almost certainly lose over time unless there is some moderation to regain suburban soccer mom support.

Thats odd, can you tell me where abortion is mentioned? Unlike gun rights - abortion is a fabricated right by an activist court. Its also disengenous (and partially untrue) that "they didnt write the consitution." The people listed either had a direct hand in it (madison, hamilton, jefferson) or were very influentual in its framing. Framing my argument as unintelligent and then suggesting the quotes from the above don't apply because they didnt perform every penstroke is... poetic.

I thought same thing about gun rights 10 and 20 years ago. Grateful they wrote what they did with the justification thats been provided in their writings.

But it's not clear or this argument would have been cleared up decades ago. I wish it were black and white. These men were wise beyond their years but, it's no way they could have seen the current state of affairs in this country at the time and, the advancement of technology that has occurred.

100% agree on the suppressor laws no doubt. The problem with that is changes to the NFA are far and few between since 1934. I'm still in shock DOJ released over 4,000 automatic firearms for transfer recently that were pre 86 sale samples.

All it takes is 5 idiots on one court - so, it will never be black and white. The right of free speech is under similar attack - ever hear of "hate speech laws"? The right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches is under attack - see the patriot act and everything thats followed. Those amendments (1 and 4) are perhaps "more" clear than the second and it didnt change anything.

 

[Forkyfinder]

And we skip over that "well regulated militia" like it is not even there, eh?

Would 2A be less if it was 10th on the list, instead of 1st? This is a new idea to me. I didn't realize they were rankings.

Again - your context of well regulated is incorrect. A well "regulated" militia is one that is equipped and trained well. Read up on it. It does not mean tyrants that fools choose to vote for "regulate" my rights.