In a New York Times op-ed today, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens -- a Nixon appointee and Republican -- argued that the United States should repeal the Second Amendment entirely. Stevens, notably, was one of four justices on the dissenting side in
And exactly the same thing: a product manufacturer triggering a woman's fear over something nonexistent, in order to make her buy their damaging product.
@Critical Dragon: Even at the time, perceptions of frontier life were distorted by myth and fiction. A non-trivial factor seems to have been toughs and tricksters who liked to fool or frighten cityfolk who were obviously out of their depth. I've wondered if the same thing has contributed to the stories of "Sharia law" and "no go zones" circulated about Europe's cities in recent years.
No way. My right (and everyone else's)not to be slaughtered by an AR-15-wielding maniac is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than that 2nd amendment, both anachronistic and murderous.
*rolls eyes at the use of “eh” when responding to a Canadian* Yes, AR15s are able to be bought in Canada but are a restricted firearm and not something you can just walk into a shop and buy. That is what is stopping a scumbag from using it illegally - the restrictions on who can have one and the fact the RCMP get to make the call as to who meets those restrictions. Proper gun control, operating the way it’s meant to.
Nope. The framers made Congress responsible for arming and funding state militias, and, by implication, defined "well-regulated militia" in Article 1, Section 8 as a state militia that is trained and organized "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
Early drafts of the Second Amendment made it clear that it existed in a military context ONLY - there was a clause that exempted anyone who was religiously scrupulous of bearing arms from being required to do so - a clause that has zero meaning outside of a military context.
Further, several states had language in their state constitutions that guaranteed that people could keep arms for hunting, but when a delegate from Pennsylvania raised a motion to include such language in the Bill of Rights, the framers ignored it.
The amendment was meant to assuage the fears of anti-federalists by ensuring that the right to arm existing state militias did not depend on Congress funding them. The "tyranny" it prevented was ensuring that Congress could never starve state militias out of existence and raise a standing army to grab power from the states.
Guess what? That ship has sailed. We have a standing army. State militias exist, but are no threat to the US military.
There was NOTHING in the Second Amendment that had anything to do with individual ownership of weapons until Scalia's fever dream in Heller made it up.
When people suggest you educate yourself on the Second Amendment, it means knowing stuff like that. It doesn't mean being some faux-tough dipshit with a vaguely threatening handle parrotting dimwitted bullshit from NRA pamphlets.
Don't think it's to late to mention that, as a mental health "self advocate", I personally tend to get frustrated by both sides of the gun control debate when it comes to the mental health issues. One of my bigger concerns is that a "common sense" package of laws would simply deny firearms to people with certain diagnoses, esp for schizophrenia and/or autism-spectrum disorders. I believe this would not only add to the stigma of mental disorder but hold back research and recognition of new categories of diagnoses, particularly those (like myself) that experience both autistic and schizophrenic tendencies. In many ways, I would rather discuss the option of a total ban rather than keep teetering at the edge of this particular rabbit hole.
Right, because if only the government could issue people guns as part of serving in the militia, then why would there need to be a "right" to protect the people in that arrangement? "...the government can't issue you this gun because the government never gave you the right to own a gun given to you by the government..."? Thats your argument??
"Early drafts"? Do you think maybe whatever you are referencing didn't make the cut for a reason? Maybe? ....The clause about religious exemption didn't need to be in the 2nd because it has nothing to do with the people right to own guns. Conscientious objection has to do with the government calling you to service, not the people's right to own guns.
"For hunting"?? The Constitution of Pennsylvania clearly grants its citizens the right to bear arms for self defense. So its pretty weird that "a delegate from Pennsylvania" would suggest its all about hunting.
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
The second amendment isn't about "state" or "congressional" authority. The second amendment clearly states it is a "right of the PEOPLE". A well regulated militia is the philosophy not the purpose of the second amendment.
There are actually things I like about Canada's gun laws. I think in addition to a background check also checking references is something that could be useful. I am not sure how that could currently be worked into the US system but I wouldn't be opposed to it. I also don't have a problem with waiting periods, even 28 days. Although, realistically I don't think very many mass shootings would have been prevented by waiting periods.
I just bloody love the way these bastards go into frenzies, running in circles and biting themselves in the small of the back, when anybody suggests touching their beloved Second Amendment, and screaming, "God-given rights under the Constitution!"The Second Amendment, interpreted strictly their way, is plainly the only part of the Constitution they give a damn about. Some of them at least are strongly for having all amendments after the tenth, repealed.That would include the amendment that abolished slavery, and the one that says no U.S. citizen shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law (to which these yoyos would probably answer, "And what's wrong with that? Then we'd be able to lock up Hillary Clinton, and also Obama and Mueller, with no fuss!") and the ones that gave every male the vote regardless of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude, and that other one that gave women the vote, and the one limiting a President's term of office (which Trump has already hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind seeing go).I have a feeling gun-humpers aren't really all that crazy about the First Amendment either.
How about using the same rhetoric the right used about OBamacare? "Repeal and replace the 2nd amendment."
The real Wild West was radically different than how it was portrayed in old westerns.
And exactly the same thing: a product manufacturer triggering a woman's fear over something nonexistent, in order to make her buy their damaging product.
@Critical Dragon: Even at the time, perceptions of frontier life were distorted by myth and fiction. A non-trivial factor seems to have been toughs and tricksters who liked to fool or frighten cityfolk who were obviously out of their depth. I've wondered if the same thing has contributed to the stories of "Sharia law" and "no go zones" circulated about Europe's cities in recent years.
Virtually all military and hunting rifles were 7.62 mm bolt action rifles, until the Vietnam War. Note how that ended.
Any one smell smoke ?
They would be shot :/
No way. My right (and everyone else's)not to be slaughtered by an AR-15-wielding maniac is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than that 2nd amendment, both anachronistic and murderous.
Your rights are not more important any anyone else's rights. The second amendment is not more important than other rights.
*rolls eyes at the use of “eh” when responding to a Canadian* Yes, AR15s are able to be bought in Canada but are a restricted firearm and not something you can just walk into a shop and buy. That is what is stopping a scumbag from using it illegally - the restrictions on who can have one and the fact the RCMP get to make the call as to who meets those restrictions. Proper gun control, operating the way it’s meant to.
Nope. The framers made Congress responsible for arming and funding state militias, and, by implication, defined "well-regulated militia" in Article 1, Section 8 as a state militia that is trained and organized "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
Early drafts of the Second Amendment made it clear that it existed in a military context ONLY - there was a clause that exempted anyone who was religiously scrupulous of bearing arms from being required to do so - a clause that has zero meaning outside of a military context.
Further, several states had language in their state constitutions that guaranteed that people could keep arms for hunting, but when a delegate from Pennsylvania raised a motion to include such language in the Bill of Rights, the framers ignored it.
The amendment was meant to assuage the fears of anti-federalists by ensuring that the right to arm existing state militias did not depend on Congress funding them. The "tyranny" it prevented was ensuring that Congress could never starve state militias out of existence and raise a standing army to grab power from the states.
Guess what? That ship has sailed. We have a standing army. State militias exist, but are no threat to the US military.
There was NOTHING in the Second Amendment that had anything to do with individual ownership of weapons until Scalia's fever dream in Heller made it up.
When people suggest you educate yourself on the Second Amendment, it means knowing stuff like that. It doesn't mean being some faux-tough dipshit with a vaguely threatening handle parrotting dimwitted bullshit from NRA pamphlets.
Don't think it's to late to mention that, as a mental health "self advocate", I personally tend to get frustrated by both sides of the gun control debate when it comes to the mental health issues. One of my bigger concerns is that a "common sense" package of laws would simply deny firearms to people with certain diagnoses, esp for schizophrenia and/or autism-spectrum disorders. I believe this would not only add to the stigma of mental disorder but hold back research and recognition of new categories of diagnoses, particularly those (like myself) that experience both autistic and schizophrenic tendencies. In many ways, I would rather discuss the option of a total ban rather than keep teetering at the edge of this particular rabbit hole.
Right, because if only the government could issue people guns as part of serving in the militia, then why would there need to be a "right" to protect the people in that arrangement? "...the government can't issue you this gun because the government never gave you the right to own a gun given to you by the government..."? Thats your argument??
"Early drafts"? Do you think maybe whatever you are referencing didn't make the cut for a reason? Maybe? ....The clause about religious exemption didn't need to be in the 2nd because it has nothing to do with the people right to own guns. Conscientious objection has to do with the government calling you to service, not the people's right to own guns.
"For hunting"?? The Constitution of Pennsylvania clearly grants its citizens the right to bear arms for self defense. So its pretty weird that "a delegate from Pennsylvania" would suggest its all about hunting.
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
The second amendment isn't about "state" or "congressional" authority. The second amendment clearly states it is a "right of the PEOPLE". A well regulated militia is the philosophy not the purpose of the second amendment.
There are actually things I like about Canada's gun laws. I think in addition to a background check also checking references is something that could be useful. I am not sure how that could currently be worked into the US system but I wouldn't be opposed to it. I also don't have a problem with waiting periods, even 28 days. Although, realistically I don't think very many mass shootings would have been prevented by waiting periods.
I just bloody love the way these bastards go into frenzies, running in circles and biting themselves in the small of the back, when anybody suggests touching their beloved Second Amendment, and screaming, "God-given rights under the Constitution!"The Second Amendment, interpreted strictly their way, is plainly the only part of the Constitution they give a damn about. Some of them at least are strongly for having all amendments after the tenth, repealed.That would include the amendment that abolished slavery, and the one that says no U.S. citizen shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law (to which these yoyos would probably answer, "And what's wrong with that? Then we'd be able to lock up Hillary Clinton, and also Obama and Mueller, with no fuss!") and the ones that gave every male the vote regardless of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude, and that other one that gave women the vote, and the one limiting a President's term of office (which Trump has already hinted strongly that he wouldn't mind seeing go).I have a feeling gun-humpers aren't really all that crazy about the First Amendment either.
Yes. Determining the proper age would be a tricky business. Donald Trump is a septuagenarian and that impulse control thing still hasn't kicked in.