idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
That's certainly one revisionist take, a rather poor one but it will be entertaining watching you attempt to support it. We all know you are going to try.
Gun control myths and info
- Thread starter Heathme
- Start date
That's certainly one revisionist take, a rather poor one but it will be entertaining watching you attempt to support it. We all know you are going to try.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Do point to another Supreme Court ruling conclusively guaranteeing a personal right to own firearms.
Getting Traded
Banned
Most of those myths are true. What a croc. No I didn't watch the video. The facts speak for themselves when you compare the numbers to nations who have gun control. And show me some examples in which concealed carry actually saved lives instead of caused people to die?
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Right after you point to a ruling indicating it was anything but a given (remember, we've agreed to use givens not rights for @fishonjazz ). Have you read Miller? What of Scalia's opinion of English law predating?
Anyway, I find it frivolous to attempt reinterpreting something that was widely believed to be an individual right for 300 years, all because of the Miller restriction. If you don't like the right then get an amendment ratified properly instead of this grasping at straws reasoning that the collectivists have attempted.
Wayne_Kenoff
Banned
Zombie
Well-Known Member
I haven't read all of Miller but this part of the decision seems pretty authoritative
"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."
This case has also been cited in other Supreme Court opinions such as Heart of Altlanta v US
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia".
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
— Id., at 178-179.
Now, my point isn't so much that this view of the second amendment is right or wrong, but instead that there's been plenty of debate practically since it's inception about the importance of the second amendment being read through the lense of maintaining a militia, rather than for personal use, pointing to Heller doesn't erase that history.
You’ll have to forgive us for doubting you after your “all recent mass shootings have been with automatic weapons” stance.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
That's a pretty tortured reading of it. It held that states are not constrained by the second amendment in the same way that the federal government is. And it's defense of the right to gun ownership extends as far as it is necessary for maintaining a militia.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
Jazzta
Guest
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Miller clearly states militia applies to all able bodied citizens:
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Then goes on to quote Osgood:
"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to[p180] cooperate in the work of defence.
The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.
A year later [1632] it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony [Massachusetts].
Also,
Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals."
Which shows James Madison attached to an early version an exception against forced conscription for those against taking up arms.
That's a modern interpretation. There wasn't really any question before mobs became an issue. 1837 Nunn vs Georgia said it plainly enough, and [Tombstone aside] that state SC decision was pretty much unchallenged until Miller.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
At any rate, I believe the discussion should be about whether or not personal ownership of firearms is still necessary or worth the costs. But that's just my IMO.
Wayne_Kenoff
Banned
A tortured reading? This is the plain meaning. You missed the whole point. Yes, they said that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the States under the Privileges and Immunities Clause consistent with Cruikshank (and Heller used the 14th Amendment to apply the 2nd Amendment to the States under Due Process), so the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the case at the time, but it clearly interprets the right to bear arms to all people, and not special militia groups:
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve military force or reserve militia of the United States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."
Thus, the Court states that the states may not "prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms." Further, the militia is not a select, uniformed force, instead, the militia consists of "all citizens capable of bearing arms."
That is what you challenged toilet destroyer to above. That has been the interpretation since the case came out.
The key distinction is it stated the 2nd Amendment only restricted the Federal Government, so it said States could restrict gun ownership. At the time, most of the Constitution did not apply to the States, which of course has changed dramatically.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Right, but my point has always been that that right is directly related to private ownership as it relates to an armed militia. That is to say, the government can't restrict access to firearms in such a way that would preclude the calling up of such a militia if the time came. That opens the door to quite a lot of regulation of what guns, how many, and whom is allowed to own them.
Wayne_Kenoff
Banned
To me the real issue is logistics. How do we get rid of guns? What will the cost be (it is clearly a taking). What about nutzos that will shoot y'all befur I giv up me rifle!
That said, based on current law, we could craft constitutional legislation to help prevent at least some of these mass shootings. And it is idiotic that we don't.
Getting Traded
Banned
Guess you missed my post that showed like 41 out of the 43 largest mass shootings involved automatic weapons. Just go to Wikipedia and you will find it.
I don’t think you understand what an automatic weapon is.
Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
An automatic weapon means that you hold down the trigger and the firearm fires continuously until there is no more ammunition.
Private citizens can own automatic weapons but they need a class 3 license and can only purchase firearms produced before 1986 (someone correct me if I'm wrong and private citizens can own newer automatic weapons with a class 3 license). Automatic weapons on the private market are ridiculously expensive. A class 3 license background check is pretty intrusive and is well beyond your typical weapon purchase background check.
Semi-automatic weapons, on the other hand, are very common and don't require any special license. A semi-automatic weapon fires one round every time you pull the trigger. The shell casing is ejected from the firearm and a new round is loaded into the chamber via a magazine automatically, but you must release the trigger and pull it again in order to fire another round.
This is a semi-automatic rifle
And so is this
Examples of firearms that are not semi-auto are bolt-action rifles, where you need to manually operate the bolt to eject the empty shell casing by lifting a lever and pulling it back. Then to load a new round push it forward and down to lock the bolt in place. Pump action shotguns work much like a bolt action rifle but they only require a straight back and fourth "pump" motion on mechanism attached to the foregrip. A dual action revolver does not require anything other than a trigger pull between rounds fired, but they are generally limited to 5-7 rounds in the cylinder. A single action revolver requires that the hammer be manually pulled back before firing each round.
Last edited:
Getting Traded
Banned
You're right, most of them were semi-automatic weapons. Does that make that much of difference though? Are you saying that most modern guns are semi-automatic, because if so then I did have some misunderstanding of that particular issue. But I see it as minor compared to the main point which is the lack of control and regulation of gun ownership.
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
True. Automatic vs. Semiautomatic doesn't make a huge difference in the context of " we need to change laws about guns. "
However, words have meanings and using imprecise language is very distracting and is something that others have and will use to derail your argument. Petty battles over semantics happen too often as it is. Please be more mindful in your choice of words.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
There is no argument. He’s had two posts. One doubles down on a factually incorrect statement and the other is the repeating bumper sticker slogan.
What point?
Most of the rest of us have offered specific suggestions and discussed policy.
His posts were rightfully slapped down.