How does the 2nd amendment clearly make room for regulations? "Shall not be infringed" is pretty serious language that doesn't leave much room for regulations.
Getting Serious about Curbing Gun Violence
- Thread starter DaShuckster
- Start date
How does the 2nd amendment clearly make room for regulations? "Shall not be infringed" is pretty serious language that doesn't leave much room for regulations.
There are allowances for some regulations; in fact SCOTUS just left that door open yet again (even with Gorsuch writing the majority opinion) in a case decided last year.
However, almost all of these super awesome ideas being thrown around right now all have one separate problem and that is due process. Regulating features on a firearm may be constitutional but passing laws that allow for the seizure of firearms for a loose array of reasons runs into much bigger grey area.
And then you have the dolts like AOC who are wanting straight up Australian style confiscation.
It also talks about a well regulated militia. The constitution was intentionally written somewhat vague and left open to interpretation for a reason, because the founders knew they couldn't foresee every circumstance that future generations would be dealing with.
Are you suggesting that any sort of gun control or gun laws are anti- 2nd amendment? I think plenty of people who consider themselves pro 2nd amendment would disagree with that, which is why my question asking Wayne to define what he means by "pro 2nd amendment" was a perfectly valid question.
There are 2 parts to the amendment, that's why there is a comma. A well regulated militia is the first right protected, the right to bear arms is the second part. By "well regulated", it is protecting the right of citizens to form a structured militia with leadership outside of the government.
So do you think any regulations at all are anti- 2nd amendment?
And again, it was written in a vague structure intentionally, not everyone interprets it the way you do.
Yes I do. I'm not saying that I favor having no regulations but they are, in fact, unconstitutional.
Well we just fundamentally disagree on that, I think the 2nd does allow room for regulations.
this guy pretends to not know that a militia can be formed by a group of every day people like you and me.
I didn't pretend that at all so I don't know what you are talking about. The 2nd amendment clearly says a well regulated militia however, so the regulated wording is a part of the conversation.
please tell me what the founding fathers would have defined a militia as?
i mean it wouldnt be something as simple as men 18-45 right? was there even a requirement to own a gun to be in the militia?
Its hard to say exactly how they would have defined a militia, and people can interpret it differently, because again, the constitution was intentionally written in vague language so that different generations had some leeway in interpretation. If they wanted it strictly defined, they would have done so. But because it says "well regulated militia", it clearly allows for some regulations.
Ill ask you the same question I asked crazyhole. Do you think any regulations at all are anti- 2nd amendment?
we literally just got done fighting a war against a gov we didnt trust. no the gov should not regulate who or what a militia is. canons were the most powerful weapons at the time the bill of rights were drafted. the guy that wrote the 2nd wanted people to have the ability to own canons. you have demonstrated a poor understanding of us history and the bill of rights.
im ok with simple background checks as felons give up these rights. also people with certain mental health issues should also be denied. however, there should be due process in which they can get those rights back.
That is where you would be wrong. A militia is a citizen military group composed of and run by citizens. Well regulated means that the people can have a militia with leadership and structure, it isn't restricted to just people having guns and being able to go and fight against enemies.
Ok. So are you pro 2nd amendment then? Because the second amendment clearly mentions well regulated militias.
And also you think the 2nd amendment only applies to cannons? Arent you arguing that the 2nd is obsolete and out dated?
I know what a militia is.
So you think any sort of militia is ok then, and there should be no government regulations at all? If someone wanted to start a militia of 30,000 people with military grade weapons, planes, etc, should that be allowed by our government?
this guy clearly doesnt know what the founding fathers considered a well regulated militia. i dont think he even understands the intent of the second amendment to be. overall it just seems like hes not very educated.
We already have that. The National Guard and Air National Guard are both militias. There have been smaller level militias not associated with any kind of government entity at all and are completely constitutional like the Freedmen.
I am asking about militias not associated with the government. If you don't want regulations on militias, then I would assume you would be ok with a private militia that had military level strength right in our back yards? Correct? And if you don't, then you do believe in some level of regulations.
And this is the crux of the debate around gun control. If someone doesn't think there should be any regulations, I disagree, but their stance is clear. If someone thinks the 2nd allows for some regulations, then the debate is where that line should be in regards to those regulations.
The US Military has essentially been fighting a militia force in Afghanistan for 18 years who are typically armed with nothing more than small arms and the occasional explosive they find and rig as an IED.
I understand that, but not sure what that has to do with regulations on militias in the US.
We are told that citizens can't defend themselves against the military anyway, so why let them have assault style weapons. Afghanistan proves that a militia can stand it's ground against any military.
I am still not really getting the point of bring up Afghanistan. The argument has seemed to shift to the effectiveness of militias, which wasn't what I was asking or talking about. I am asking if you think there should be any regulations at all in the US.
I already said I am ok with some regulations, but they are technically unconstitutional.
Ok, but when I said something about government regulation of militias you told me I was wrong. You're arguments are just kind of scattered. Even saying you are ok with regulations, even though you think they are unconstitutional, is a bit of an odd view.
How is that odd? I support freedom of speech but I don't want people yelling fire in a crowded theater. I want people to be able to own guns but I'd rather not have tactical nukes next door. Both are technically constitutionally protected but I diverge from the bill of rights in both cases.
It is odd because you are essentially saying you are ok violating the constitution, and that isn't an argument you see people making often.
That's because most people talking about doing so have a lack of understanding on what the Bill of Rights really is. You are in favor of doing so and think that it isn't an infringement, and at best you base your position on case law. My position is based on honesty, yours is based on misinformation.
It isn't based on misinformation on at all. There have been numerous cases regarding the 2nd amendment over the years. If there was no interpretation and it was as cut and dry as you make it out to be there would be no need for the number of court rulings regarding the second amendment.
And I don't understand what you mean by position is based on case law and yours on honesty. How are discussions regarding the constitution not supposed to be based around case law? Are we supposed to base those discussions on emotion instead? I am just not sure what you even mean by that statement.
Whatever you gotta tell yourself. Every scotus ruling that infringed on the people's right to bear arms was an unconstitutional ruling. I'm not saying that I don't agree with some of those restrictions, but that's coming from a pragmatic point of view, not a strict constitutionalist point of view.
That is your opinion and nothing more that thousands of lawyers and legal scholars would argue against. . And the SC court should be in the business of constitutionality, not pragmatism. And look, you are entitled to your views, it is just kind of odd that you are essentially admitting you don't mind violating the constitution. You don't see people make that argument much, but more power to ya.
I agree that SCOTUS should be in the business of constitutional law, but what they actually do is go off of case law. It seems to me that any ruling that the court makes should be off of the merits of whether it is consistent with the Bill of Rights and disregard prior rulings. With the 2nd amendment, the words "shall not be infringed" is extremely strong language and leaves no room for interpretation. That means if a person wants to own a tactical nuke, the Constitution protects that right. I think it's insane personally, but that is a subjective opinion. Objectively, yes a person has the right to have as many as they want legally speaking.
Honestly, if your side would come out with some sort of rational amendment to the Constitution that restricted some guns or weapons and it is merit based, it would probably pass. The problem is that you guys think that's too hard so you try to reinterpret the 2nd amendment and make it seem like something different than what it is. The other issue is that your side views the bill of rights as rights that the government grants to the citizens, when in fact it is a limitation on what the government can do.
"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."
This is what the amendment says. So when you basically make it about "shall not be infringed", you are ignoring the rest of the amendment. It clearly says "well regulated militia", which opens up the idea that regulations can be constitutional. It also says "being necessary to a free state". Are all the guns we have in our society today necessary for a free state? You can't just focus on 3 words and ignore the rest of the amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-comma-in-the-second-amendment-2013-8
And there is a breakdown of the different arguments that have gone with regards to the second amendment over the years, and also article about the actual grammar of the second amendment. It is most certainly open to discussion and interpretation, and the founders did that intentionally.
Again, you have a misunderstanding of what a well regulated militia is and you are expanding that misunderstanding to the right to bear arms. If regulating arms was a part of that amendment, why wouldn't they say it? You miss the entire spirit of the Bill of Rights, which is solely and explicitly restriction on government power. They did not originally write 10 amendments with 9 being restrictions on government power and also include 1 that grants the government power.
That's fine. I just posted actual law articles about it and the different interpretations, but you obviously know better than any legal scholars or lawyers throughout the history of the country, and are the clear authority on this issue, so you win, congratulations.
Your articles actually do prove me right. Why was the Miller ruling overturned? It was a terrible ruling based on nothing but personal politics, but it got the ball rolling for gun control and it's the perfect example of why case law should be disregarded by SCOTUS.
I can't have a sawed off shotgun because there is no use for it that is legal. That's what the court said in their ruling. Well, is it illegal to shoot the ground? Is it illegal to use it as a cane? Is it illegal to use it as a decoration in my house? No to all of the above and thousands of other reasons. Is it illegal to use it to murder someone? Yep, but that law exists for any form of murder. Fortunately the later court went by the Constitution and overturned it because it was a stupid ruling with no constitutional basis.
You were stating that a militia must feature F16's, Abrams, Bradleys, and basically mimic what the standing army has. It doesn't. That was my point.
