Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

[ImGod]

It is refreshing to see people admit they just don't like the 2nd and want to wish it away. It's how we got rid of the pesky 4th, and will eventually do away with the 1st. Pesky laws of a bygone era, not relavent to modern society or technological changes.

Pick away at the edges with property seizures, warrantless electronic surveillance. Through in some hate speech, testing for elections, and some draconian gun laws and further down the path we go.

The fact they have us arguing between ourselves as to which rights they get to take away depending on who wins an upcoming election is brilliant work on their part.

 

[SimpleDon]

Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

Just a general point: The constitution was written in the 1790s and the parts we are talking about have not been amended since. Whether an armed citizen militia could beat a standing army today is entirely irrelevant to what the Constitution says. Feel free and try to amend it if you think it is no longer of relevance.

The guys who had just created the federal government weren't so much against the federal government.

This clause reflects that they did not want to see a permanent standing army.

They were very distrustful of a central government.

But this is right. Permanent standing armies have removed the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

So what?

The debate is about what the law should be. It is of only passing relevance to consider what it is, or was.

Unless you think the US Constitution was handed down by the Gods, and must remain static for all time.

The 2nd may or may not have granted a valuable right when the Bill of Rights was enacted. But it is valueless today - and has positively harmful side-effects. So it should be changed.

Bull, etc, etc... The Constitution was designed to be interpreted rigorously and with no latitude for change other than the amendment process, which was deliberately made difficult. Most definitely undemocratic as the intent was to protect the Constitutional rights of any sort of minority from the majority. That evil people gain political power is a reality that always has, and always will be, part of the human condition. The 2nd Amendment was designed to address that issue. Subversion of the Constitution is unlawful and grounds for implementation of the 2nd Amendment.

I don't believe that anyone is presenting a very strong case supporting any of the extremes. Somewhat at random, my take on the thread so far,

1. Violent crime is largely committed by late teens and twenty something year old males.
2. Therefore the changing rate of violent crimes has little to do with gun control or gun sales and almost everything to do with demographics.
3. The hope that the US didn't need a standing army didn't last for a single decade, but somehow we have had one ever since without having to amend the Constitution that didn't allow a standing army in peacetime.
4. The Constitution hasn't succeeded all of these years because it is a brilliant piece of basic fundamental law.
5. Because it had to be ratified by people with a broad range of interests it was written crouched in so many ambiguities that nearly everyone could interpret it to find support for their own views.
6. It is this built in ambiguity that has allowed the Constitution to adapt to more than two hundred years of dramatic social and economic change.
7. This intentional ambiguity is why nearly everyone can support their own preferred version of "original intent" with a suitable quote from a founding father.
8. Alito's reasoning in Washington DC vs. Heller was based on the rather questionable assertion that the 2nd amendment's opening phrase about militias was nothing more than a rhetorical flourish, a preamble.
9. This in a document with no rhetorical flourishes outside of the document's preamble and no other amendments with preambles.
10. This in a document noted for its spare language, a document that established the trial courts under the Supreme Court with two words, "in equity."
11. In the very first SCOTUS decision of any importance, Marbury vs. Madison, the court ruled that every word in the Constitution outside of the Preamble, the so called "where as's," has meaning, a precedent that held until Heller.
12. This idea that parts of the Constitution are nothing but useless verbiage is needless to say dangerous, especially for the people who want a broad interpretation of the 10th amendment, for example,
13. If the drafters of the second amendment didn't want the militia phrase to limit the ownership of guns then the phrase is useless and they would have omitted it.
14. The idea that private citizens should be able to own any weapon that the military uses was as silly in 1789 as it is today.
15. Heller re-inforced the ability of the government to restrict the ownership of certain weapons, machine guns for example, as well as the ability of governments to require the registration of guns.
16. But they but found that the Washington DC ban on handguns is too much of a restriction because handguns are "popular," an impossible standard for the lower courts to apply, popularity.
17. The idea that the second amendment was written as a check on tyranny is also suspect.
18. The entire Constitution was being written as the ultimate check on tyranny, to establish a stronger central government, democratically elected with a system of checks and balances of power.
19. There are many more guns being bought today in the US than at any point in the past, but fewer people own guns one or more guns, down to 22% from a peak of 31% in 1985.
20. This makes a further mockery of the idea that more guns has had anything to do with the decrease in violent crimes.
21. There are countries with more guns owned by more people with much lower gun violence than in the US, Finland, for example.
22. This means that the large numbers of guns in circulation aren't the major reason for all of the gun violence that we see.
23. This means that gun control, gun registration, responsibly laws, background checks, etc. can't do much to reduce gun violence.
24. This means that Americans are more prone to gun violence than other countries.
25. While this means "That guns don't kill people, people kill people," it does also mean that Americans should be kept as far away from guns as possible, that Americans as a whole aren't responsible enough to have guns.
26. And this means that we must be trying to reduce the American tendency to violence.
27. And how can letting Americans easy access to certain classes of guns, allowing them to carry concealed guns into bars, airports, anywhere, under the falsehood that these things will reduce crime, how can these things reduce the American culture of violence?
28. So that gun control might be justified if it instills some sense of responsibility of owning guns in Americans, if owning a gun required buying liability insurance, for example.
29. And no, it isn't a mental health issue, only about 5% of shootings of others are by people with mental health problems.
30. Except that nearly one half of the people who are shot by police are people with mental health problems.

The widespread pro-gun and the widespread anti-gun adherents are both driven more by ideology and not by any real logic.

I am not trying to find the center or even the common ground between the two extremes. I am trying to work out a solution to an obvious problem. I am a moderate, not a centrist.

 

[dystopian]

• Violent crime is largely committed by late teens and twenty something year old males.
• Therefore the changing rate of violent crimes has little to do with gun control or gun sales and almost everything to do with demographics.

This does not follow; and I'm honestly rather surprised someone would try to make that argument. It's quite easy to establish a correlation between the average gun ownership rates in a society and the amount of gun-related crime. Regardless of whether that's actually the case though, whether or not most of said crime is committed by gun-toting adolescents as opposed to gun-toting seniors isn't relevant to the question of whether gun control/sales have anything to do with the problem.

• There are countries with more guns owned by more people with much lower gun violence than in the US, Finland, for example.
• This means that the large numbers of guns in circulation aren't the major reason for all of the gun violence that we see.

This isn't even remotely true and I'm not sure where you get your information from. There are 29.1 guns per 100 citizens in Finland. By comparison, there are 112.6 guns per 100 citizens in the US. You *could* try to argue that the percentage of people who own a gun is higher in Finland and that the high numbers for the US are the result of more guns concentrated in fewer hands... but you'd be wrong. The percentage of people in Finland who own a gun is 12%. Compare this to one third of Americans owning one. And no... there actually aren't any other countries that have a higher rate of civilian firearms ownership than the US either. Nobody comes even close.

Since the initial claim is flat out wrong, the conclusion does not follow.

• This means that gun control, gun registration, responsibly laws, background checks, etc. can't do much to reduce gun violence.

This wouldn't follow even if your previous points were true. One can not simply draw that conclusion if there's a country with more gun ownership but fewer incidences of violent crime (which there isn't); for one, it would be entirely possible that such a hypothetical country would have extraordinarly strict gun laws which help keep down violent crime while simultaneously having more guns. These are not mutually exclusive states. One would have to properly control for differences in legislation and socio-economic conditions between the two countries. However, the point is moot since such a country does not actually seem to exist.

• This means that Americans are more prone to gun violence than other countries.

Implausible.

The widespread pro-gun and the widespread anti-gun adherents are both driven more by ideology and not by any real logic.

I am not trying to find the center or even the common ground between the two extremes. I am trying to work out a solution to an obvious problem. I am a moderate, not a centrist.

While it is correct there are ideology driven arguments on both sides; that does not neccessarily mean that there is going to be some sort of middle-road solution. Also, dismissing both sides as lacking in real logic while simultaneously trying to portray yourself as the reasonable middle-ground seems awfully narcissistic. It's also probably not the smartest thing to do when you're trying to establish conclusions that clearly don't follow from the premises upon which you base your arguments.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I was reading about the most recent Republican attempt to repeal Obamacare. There was the argument "it's been law for several years, stop trying to overturn it."

Is there a point at which a law grows so old it can be overturned again?

 

[repoman]

Do you think that choice of the races of these kids was accidental?

The white and non-white labels were added to the original ads.

 

[arkirk]

After the Republicans win the house, senate, and presidency over this issue (which has little to do with our suicide and violence homicide issues), they'll appoint a justice or two to hep define the issue.

On top of it, they'll open up abortion, marriage, and repeal healthcare, etc. It seems like such and odd issue for Democrats to bring to the forefront, given the problems with the country and our gun and violence rates dropping yearly. We're safer than we were in the 60s in all but liberal cities with stricter gun laws.

You really have things upside down.
Do you really think the do nothing Republicans can buy the whole shooting match? I think you are way off base.