How many firearm owners belong to a well regulated militia?

[PeacefulWarrior]

The closest equivalent would be the selective service, so, all male gun owners.

Ah. So idiots like this fella? Some "regulation".
Lets be honest: its WELL beyond time to go ahead and toggle our brains on re: the gun insanity in the USA. It just isnt working out.

 

[Rucker61]

I don't see how most of these things would be a problem with the kinds of regulations most Americans- heck even most gun owners- heck even most NRA members- want to see. Why do you fight them?

I'm in a blue district in a blue state. There's no fight.
Given the stated gun control advocate of "end gun violence", "no more mass shootings" and "no more school shootings", it's going to take a lot more than restrictions on ARs to get there.

I will be fine with just getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Modern technology has made it dangerously obsolete as it stands.

You keep saying that in complete disregard of SCOTUS. Makes it meaningless.
Given Cruikshank, the right to keep and bear arms would still exist without the 2nd Amendment.
If you want to get better results that your sample countries you're going to have to do more. You can't ignore the mass confiscations they imposed.

Yes, they don't think, for example, that a few days extra wait is worth the inconvenience.

That wasn't the question. Would imposing these be considered bothersome by a lawful gun owner?

1. Repeal the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
2. Overturn at least five SCOTUS decisions.
3. Only allow about 1 in 20 of current firearm owners to own guns.
4. Confiscate about 350 million firearms

They are a pretty selfish group and without any regard to public safety or consideration. They are like the neighbor who likes to blast their stereo at odd hours and tell you to F off if you try to talk to them. There are ways to deal with such inconsiderate and self-centered neighbors.

You call the cops. Merely owning the world's loudest stereo isn't a problem. Playing it too loudly is. Owning a firearm in common use for lawful purposes isn't a problem. Committing murder is.

Circular reasoning. They currently aren't because they are illegal and not available.

They could be in common use for lawful purposes (protecting their home and potential defense against a tyrannical foreign government, etc...) if you make them legal and easily available.

Could be. Let us know when that happens.


Currently, however, virtually all classes of firearms sold today are in common use for lawful purposes. That's why you can't ban them.

You might want to look into the recent movement to use "in common use" to overturn the NFA 1934, as machine guns, silencers and SBRs meet the requirements of "in common use" established in Caetano v Massachusetts.

 

[Rucker61]

Does that mean the guys running around in the woods playing soldiers really aren't in a militia?

Not according to Presser, anyway. They are citizens with the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[ataraxia]

I'm in a blue district in a blue state. There's no fight.
Given the stated gun control advocate of "end gun violence", "no more mass shootings" and "no more school shootings", it's going to take a lot more than restrictions on ARs to get there.

Let's start somewhere. You can't just flood the zone with s*** as fast as you can and then shrug and say it's too late to do anything about it. It's never too late to clean up.

You keep saying that in complete disregard of SCOTUS. Makes it meaningless.

The SCOTUS can only follow the law. Once the 2A goes, SCOTUS will have to reevaluate.

Given Cruikshank, the right to keep and bear arms would still exist without the 2nd Amendment.

If the 2A and abortion can go, so can this.

If you want to get better results that your sample countries you're going to have to do more. You can't ignore the mass confiscations they imposed.

Reagan did a pretty good job with limiting full autos. I would be OK with following a similar model.

You call the cops. Merely owning the world's loudest stereo isn't a problem. Playing it too loudly is. Owning a firearm in common use for lawful purposes isn't a problem. Committing murder is.

Insisting on open carrying this stuff in malls, around elementary schools, around government buildings, etc... is as annoying to the public (to put it mildly) as playing your stereo loudly. Stop being an annoying neighbor.

 

[Rucker61]

Let's start somewhere. You can't just flood the zone with s*** as fast as you can and then shrug and say it's too late to do anything about it. It's never too late to clean up.

So you support S.736 andH.R.1808, even though they are patently unconstitutional?

The SCOTUS can only follow the law. Once the 2A goes, SCOTUS will have to reevaluate.

Well, if the 2A ever gets repealed, we can revisit this. Or our grandchildren can. Likely they'll just look at Cruikshank.

If the 2A and abortion can go, so can this.

Not with this Court. The Democrats keep telling that they support the Second Amendment. Are they lying to us?

Reagan did a pretty good job with limiting full autos. I would be OK with following a similar model.

Other than being unconstitutional, it would still leave 25 million AR-15s in circulation. Do you think this would work?

You need to be more concerned with NFA 1934 getting overturned that the 2nd being repealed.

Insisting on open carrying this stuff in malls, around elementary schools, around government buildings, etc... is as annoying to the public (to put it mildly) as playing your stereo loudly. Stop being an annoying neighbor.

Would a law against open carry in these locations actually protect anyone, or is it just about "feels"?

 

[ataraxia]

So you support S.736 andH.R.1808, even though they are patently unconstitutional?

Well, if the 2A ever gets repealed, we can revisit this. Or our grandchildren can. Likely they'll just look at Cruikshank.

Just a matter of time and how much of a stomach for blood America has. This nonsense we have is unsustainable and barbaric in a modern civil society.

Now if we were a "free" society- like failed states such as Somalia or the remote outreaches of Afghanistan, then yes- you would still need this stuff for self protection. Mad Max utopia.

I doubt the founding fathers of this country had this in mind when they were writing the 2A.

 

[Rucker61]

Just a matter of time and how much of a stomach for blood America has. This nonsense we have is unsustainable and barbaric in a modern civil society.

Now if we were a "free" society- failed states like Somalia or the remote outreaches of Afghanistan, then yes- you would still need this stuff for self protection. Mad Max utopia.

I doubt the founding fathers of this country had this in mind when they were writing the 2A.

Not surprising, since this isn't actually a real gun.

They were familiar with repeating firearms, though.

 

[ataraxia]

Not surprising, since this isn't actually a real gun.

They were familiar with repeating firearms, though.

OK, tell you what, we can keep those repeating firearms legal for you. Deal?

 

[Rucker61]

OK, tell you what, we can keep those repeating firearms legal for you. Deal?

You keep saying "we". You don't have any power here.

Does the 1st and 4th not protect my phone?

 

[trouble13]

It is not your right to change the wording to suit your view. The second amendment does not use the words well practiced, it uses the word regulated as in oversight, supervision.

For all of the complaining you folks on the right do about regulations, all of a sudden you no longer understand the meaning?

I can't help it if you don't understand words can and often do have multiple meanings

 

[trouble13]

So far I would say the mad max scenario is winning the argument and you good guys with guns are losing.

It's not the guns fault

 

[ralfy]

Who is your militia regulated by?

2A doesn't imply that one has to be part of a regulated militia in order to justify gun ownership. Rather, the formation of a regulated militia is based on the same reason for gun ownership, which is self-defense.

 

[Bullseye]

Who is your militia regulated by?

How many times are misinformed lefties gonna ask the same dumbass questions?

 

[noonereal]

But now that reason is long gone. So why do we still have the 2A? Sounds like it’s obsolete.

If it’s now just for self defense, many other countries do that- without it being in their Constitution that anyone off the street can carry around any military grade weapon of their choice anywhere they want. With modern weaponry, that’s just crazy.

The 2A is dangerously obsolete both in terms of the purpose for which it was created and the technology it was referring to.

Yep
A totally obsolete amendment. I have been pointing this out here forever.

 

[bongsaway]

I can't help it if you don't understand words can and often do have multiple meanings

Not in this instance. Well regulated does not mean practiced no matter how much you try to twist the meaning. Just like a stop sign means stop, not slow to a roll and go but this is the kind of stuff you folks on the right tell each other to make things ok.

 

[bongsaway]

2A doesn't imply that one has to be part of a regulated militia in order to justify gun ownership. Rather, the formation of a regulated militia is based on the same reason for gun ownership, which is self-defense.

So why then does the second amendment even mention a well regulated militia if it means nothing in connection with gun ownership?

 

[bongsaway]

How many times are misinformed lefties gonna ask the same dumbass questions?

So, what does a well regulated militia mean in connection with the second amendment?

 

[Schweddy]

That just doesnt ring true to me at all.
The founders intended for every idiot to be constantly armed, in case a small minority ever wanted to forcibly and violently erase established institutions that they view as "tyrannical".

That just sounds bizarre to me. Doesnt make any logical sense at all. We have representative government now, if people are too ignorant to make policy peaceably and vote for the correct people, then they are CERTAINLY far too ignorant to start shooting the correct people either, IMO.

Time to point the compass in a new direction IMO. The concept that every mouth breathing idiot in the nation have an arsenal in their closet to protect us from "tyranny" is simply no longer going to fly. Again IMO. Its laughable.

The founders also thought they were creating a federated group of small nations. Federal laws were supposed to be extremely limited and the military was only to secure the group of small nations if they got into trouble. Each nation would create their own laws, tarrifs (hello civil war), and taxes. The constitution is a list of items the states could not infringe.

The civil war proved that states do not have autonomy (not just against the biggy topic that everyone always goes to) and are forced to do the bidding of the fed.

To this day, states are still fighting to secure and keep those rights.

The second amendment is no different, but at the personal level.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Who is your militia regulated by?

It's regulated by the fact that we have firearms and know how to use them.

 

[NWRatCon]

We can do that too, sure. It's a matter of balancing private utility with public safety.

As is true of all elements of the Constitution, our laws, regulations, and "rights". The whole point of the Constitution, indeed, was balancing rights and authorities, between government and the people, between State and federal governments, and between branches. The founders were, in reality, very fond of well-regulated activities, as they felt that was what ensured our liberties (not some fantastical notions about universal firearm possession). They would be alarmed by the positions that modern gun enthusiasts take with regard to firearms and notions of rebellion.

I don't see the private utility of guns being significantly impacted by the kinds of things most Americans- heck, even most gun owners- want. But the public safety sure would. Sounds like an easy proposition.

Outside of war (or a movie set), there is no utility to anything greater than a 5/6-round magazine for any firearm. Perhaps one can make a weak argument for 10-rounds in competition shooting, but creating exceptions for such activities would be fairly simple to implement and regulate. It is also extremely important from a "regulation" standpoint, that even prior to the formation of the nation, the founders made a stark distinction between "possession of firearms in the home" and carriage of firearms in the public. The historical record is rife with such examples, from statements during the debates, to letters, histories, treatises and, most importantly, contemporaneous laws.

Well regulated does not mean practiced no matter how much you try to twist the meaning. Just like a stop sign means stop, not slow to a roll and go but this is the kind of stuff you folks on the right tell each other to make things ok.

There is no, repeat NO, correlation between the notion that "well-regulated" meant anything other than disciplined and under control of responsible leadership, and merely "practiced". That is nonsense. Discipline included firearm discipline. That has always been the case and what informed the founders.

 

[trouble13]

Not in this instance. Well regulated does not mean practiced no matter how much you try to twist the meaning. Just like a stop sign means stop, not slow to a roll and go but this is the kind of stuff you folks on the right tell each other to make things ok.

This is why we have a SCOTUS. They weigh in when reasonable people disagree and we live with what they decide.

 

[memberya2]

It's regulated by two commas after your question. In other words, your allowed to keep guns so you could join a militia against a tyrannical government at any time.

It says nothing about quantity, quality or type.

How many government agents will you shoot with your guns
why do people feel like they need guns to fight the government
so how many innocent civilians will you hurt?

 

[Bullseye]

So, what does a well regulated militia mean in connection with the second amendment?

Not interested in debating this issue for the millionth time.

 

[Airyaman]

Sorry to all that I missed in response in this thread, was out of town with the occasional phone peak.

Not sure where this went, but from what I've read, the militia deal was because they didn't want a government standing army at the time (the Crown made them a tad suspicious). They were trying to be "free", but they also understood the need for some "law and order", so they thought of the idea of "well ordered militias", who could also stand up against Britain's troops.

No, those militias do not exist anymore, nor should they. But the amendment does not say that only those in militias could have a right to firearms. It basically says that if you want to stand up in defense (in that case, against Britain), then you have the right to defend yourself.

The Constitution was written long ago in a much different time. Shame on us for not updating it, but it's too late. We are so divided now that there will never be a revision. Well, not in my lifetime. Americans have this habit of holding onto writings from much older times and trying to fit them to modern society.

Instead all you hope for is the right set of judges. Like with abortion...

Never going to happen folks. We're going to have to figure out the real gun problem. It's not the Constitution.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The founders also thought they were creating a federated group of small nations. Federal laws were supposed to be extremely limited and the military was only to secure the group of small nations if they got into trouble. Each nation would create their own laws, tarrifs (hello civil war), and taxes. The constitution is a list of items the states could not infringe.

^ Complete nonsense.

The founding fathers, via our country’s foundational document, the United States Constitution, created a perpetual, indissoluble union of states. Not “small nations”.

The civil war proved that states do not have autonomy (not just against the biggy topic that everyone always goes to) and are forced to do the bidding of the fed.

“Bidding of the fed”?

What’s that supposed to mean?

To this day, states are still fighting to secure and keep those rights.

What rights? Please list some specific rights that states are purportedly still fighting to secure.

The second amendment is no different, but at the personal level.

How so?