Mass Shooting Incidents in the United States

[Fusion]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Are you advocating its repeal?

Well my point of posting that link was to provide a bit of historical context. As for answering your question, I actually don't think the 2nd Amendment confers the right to bear arms on INDIVIDUALS at all. Our understanding of the 2nd Amendment has evolved drastically over the last 40 years or so. Before I offer support for my theory, let me also point out how conveniently the rightwing gun advocates forget the part about "a well regulated militia" in the amendment (not talking about you here as I know you advocate stricter gun control).

Now returning back to the subject of whether individuals should have the right to bear arms at all, I'm going to rely on the excellent analysis of Jeffrey Toobin to make my case:

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore*recounted this history in a recent piece for*The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”


I encourage everyone to read that entire article as it may come as a surprise to know that the relatively recent understanding that the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms for everyone was not aways the prevalent narrative.

Of course I'm not naive enough to think that the courts will revert back to their earlier understanding of the Amendment or, failing that, the Amendment will be repealed. The NRA has simply transformed the culture of this country enough that neither of those things will happen in my lifetime. I do hope for stricter gun control and a ban on automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Baby steps toward the ultimate goal, even if it comes after my death.

[silentstriker]

When the second amendment was passed, it was the individuals who owned the guns though. The law was made to prevent the individuals from being forced to lose their firearms. I see the point about militias - back then the militias came from the people, so if you stopped the individuals from owning guns, you stopped the militias from having them. That of course does not apply anymore.

[Fusion]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

When the second amendment was passed, it was the individuals who owned the guns though. The law was made to prevent the individuals from being forced to lose their firearms. I see the point about militias - back then the militias came from the people, so if you stopped the individuals from owning guns, you stopped the militias from having them. That of course does not apply anymore.

Nevertheless, the amendment specifically mentions militias and not individuals. As Toobin points out, conservatives are sticklers for "originalism", the concept that the Constitution must be applied exactly as written and that there is no such thing as an "evolving" or "living" document. As such, if the part about the militia is no longer relevant, then tough luck. Pass a new amendment that specifically gives individuals a right to bear arms (and while at it, make sure the amendment does not mention "well regulated"anywhere in the text).

[benchmark00]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/miSjgv1MH7s

Real ad ftr.

[uvelocity]

bizarre

[Top_Cat]

Obama Announces Gun Control Measures

[wellAlbidarned]

"I think most of us would have preferred if it just had been a straightforward address to the country because it implies that somehow those of us who do not agree with his public policy prescriptions don't equally care about children."

well you're kinda saying you care more about guns than children so...

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Obama Announces Gun Control Measures

"Minutes after the President spoke the Texas representative Steve Toth appeared on CNN to say God conferred rights upon the people, not the Congress, and he would introduce legislation that would make it illegal for federal agents to enforce the laws in Texas"

A particularly special quote that stands out even amongst the many grotesquely stupid comments made.

[Agent Nationaux]

A congressman who is going to try and get legislation passed in congress to stop congressional laws to be enforced.

[wellAlbidarned]

Legalise marriage with guns imo

[Top_Cat]

Jesus, Howard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/op...o.html?hp&_r=0

[silentstriker]

Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control.

Yea....no thanks. I'd rather have an assault rifle in every home than no bill of rights.

[Son Of Coco]

You're right, it's anarchy over here with no Bill of Rights. People running rampant in the streets. Murders and death everywhere. Kids getting shot in their schools.

Oh wait...

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Yea....no thanks. I'd rather have an assault rifle in every home than no bill of rights.

No.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

You're right, it's anarchy over here with no Bill of Rights. People running rampant in the streets. Murders and death everywhere. Kids getting shot in their schools.

Oh wait...

FFS, I didn't say that you guys should adopt the bill of rights.....you guys have a system that seems to work quite well for you guys and that's great. I don't think it would work here. I don't trust my elected officials enough to be so subject to their whims on what rights I should have in an election to election basis.

Just like I'm completely fine with the gun laws in the UK even though I'd never want them in the US.

I'm saying I would not feel comfortable at all if we got rid of the bill of rights.