Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

[Mr Person]

It's hamfisted, but the OP's point appears to be not that he thinks constitutional rights should only apply to the things that existed at the time, but rather that the people who seem most rigidly behind the broadest possible 2nd Amd. right also tend to insist on the sham called "originalism" in other contexts. (Say, in gay marriage, abortion, interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, yadda yadda). Point being.... the groups of people I refer to generally would want the 2nd to protect the right to keep and bear all sorts of modern weaponry the founders simply didn't have or imagine, so what the hell are they doing attacking Roe for recognizing an unnenumerated right to privacy?

But he didn't spell that out and even if he did it would be a rather incomplete post without an argument for how he thinks constitutional interpretation should go. It's all well and good to look askance at someone's stated beliefs if they are not consistent in them, but it's also a good idea to have one's own stance staked out in a non-reactionary manner.

As to original intent/meaning on the 2nd, Mithros made a good case over here: https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...america-is-getting-heller-wrong.482567/page-2



___________

Originalism is a silly lie. Pragmatically speaking, the courts could not follow it with any rigidity and still function. Look at Kyllo. It's a SCOTUS decision about whether or not it's a search under the 4th if the police drive down a public street aiming an infrared scan at houses, detect a lot of heat coming off a room in one you wouldn't expect normally, get a warrant, and hello pot farm. If rigid originalism were intended, SCOTUS couldn't answer that without a new constitutional amendment. Those aren't easy to pass.

And anyway, all but a few framers were on board with SCOTUS and any Article III courts later created by congress to follow English common law principles in decisionmaking. Meaning that one of the things it was intended to do is analogize from prior cases decided in other circumstances to the case before it and thus, each decision issued would effectively create "new law".

All originalism really is is a fig leaf. The people claiming to believe it most ardently really just want to see decisions coming down that line up with a socially and/or "small government" conservative viewpoint. It would indeed be silly to insist that only muskets are protected by the 2nd; and it'd be its own hypocrisy if, say, someone who approved of Roe were to insist on it.

 

[ataraxia]

I know this will be a shocker to you but laws don't prevent homicide. See, homicidal people don't care about the law so you can make whatever laws you want and homicidal people will still kill. The problem we're having isn't with the laws, it's with the people and whatever we're doing to make so many people think that killing one another is a good idea.

So if laws don't work for people who are going to break it anyway, why have any laws at all- for anything?

 

[Craig234]

Well, I'm not going to, and I'm not going to withdraw it. You can either accept my assertion that I feel personally threatened by the political rhetoric of Trump loyalists and other "social issues" right-wing authoritarians, and by the trend of growing police power and shrinking police accountability, or you can damned well sit there and explain to me how they are not a physical threat to me, as a politically liberal, non-Christian, disabled and "gay-coded" person.

You have withdrawn it involuntarily, by not backing it up. I'm not talking about your 'feeling threatened' - I believe that - I'm talking about the basis you claim for feeling threatened, a factual claim you made that a "large minority" of Americans have said they want to kill all people like you, in a way you feel they actually do want to so you need a gun. But you can't even name three of the millions you claim said that.

Instead, you seem to be trying to reference radical right-wing groups. Now, I might have misread your initial post, which I thought you were saying a large part of the country wants to kill all people who support guns or are right-wing. That's what I was challenging you to back up. Instead it looks like you were saying somewhat the opposite, talking about the radical right wanting to kill, which has much better evidence.

But even on that, it's a dubious argument about carrying a gun as protection for it.

No one can shoot you from behind you don't see? If a mob of dozens of armed militia members came at you shooting you, you think your gun would prevent it? On the other hand, you simply having a gun creates some risk to others - not to mention that the same right giving others guns puts you in more danger.

 

[Mr Person]

I know this will be a shocker to you but laws don't prevent homicide. See, homicidal people don't care about the law so you can make whatever laws you want and homicidal people will still kill. The problem we're having isn't with the laws, it's with the people and whatever we're doing to make so many people think that killing one another is a good idea.

Which is part of what was so painfully stupid about pretending that the reason murder rates spiked during COVID was that people were seen with signs reading "defund the police" at protests, and people who would otherwise be deterred from murder decided they'd go murder. But anyway...

 

[IQ57]

If I'm being a smartass, it doesn't say "guns" either.

So then it must be the two arms on your body then?

How odd.

 

[Jay59]

When they said that the purpose was to stand up to an army. In the 18th century, muskets were enough for that. But modern technology has made the 2A obsolete in the modern world. Just ask the Ukrainians if shotguns and AR15s are enough against a modern army.

Private soldiers in the 18th century did bring a personal weapon, but even then the Army issued muskets and owned the artillery.

You sidestep the point. The founders envisioned an armed populous

The weapons being sent to Ukraine and why they may not be enough

The arms Ukraine receives will be vital to the outcome of the war, but will it get the influx of heavy weapons it needs?

www.aljazeera.com

What has this to do with anything?

 

[ataraxia]

Private soldiers in the 18th century did bring a personal weapon, but even then the Army issued muskets and owned the artillery.

You sidestep the point. The founders envisioned an armed populous

Yes, but technology was very different back then. Modern technology, especially since around WWI, has been a real game-changer. Technology can often be quite disruptive in that way.

 

[ataraxia]

What has this to do with anything?

The Ukrainians cannot even hold off an invading modern army with all the heavy advanced weaponry they are getting. You think if they all had shotguns it would have made some kind of difference?

 

[Jay59]

Yes, but technology was very different back then. Modern technology, especially since around WWI, has been a real game-changer. Technology can often be quite disruptive in that way.

Yes, but... Our HS debate coach would string you up.

The founders understood the concepts of handguns and long guns. The specifics have been refined, but the principles have not changed. The founders also knew that tyrants collect civilian guns.

The Ukrainians cannot even hold off an invading modern army with all the heavy advanced weaponry they are getting. You think if they all had shotguns it would have made some kind of difference?

Trained armies push right through disorganized resistance. Rome was built on the principle. What has not changed in 2000 years did not change in a mere 250.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

The military reserves = our standing militia = don't need violent organizations acting as a militia

yeah ... no

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You have withdrawn it involuntarily, by not backing it up.

No, I'm just refusing to waste an hour of my life googling up links to shit we both know people have been saying all over the internet and cable news for the past fourteen years. You're insulting my intelligence by refusing to admit that you know something that has been self-evident to anyone paying attention-- including yourself-- for the last decade and change.

Instead, you seem to be trying to reference radical right-wing groups. Now, I might have misread your initial post, which I thought you were saying a large part of the country wants to kill all people who support guns or are right-wing. That's what I was challenging you to back up. Instead it looks like you were saying somewhat the opposite, talking about the radical right wanting to kill, which has much better evidence.

I mean... I mostly meant the latter thing. But I'm not going to be disarmed while I'm alive, and... there are a lot of "enlightened", "peaceful" anti-gun "liberals" that you don't have to scratch very deeply to find out they're perfectly okay with that. If you send a police officer into my home to enforce a violation of my human rights, either that police officer or another police officer is going to kill me... pretty much immediately.

They don't "want to kill me", or they say they don't, but they do want the police to kill me. Obviously, a gun isn't going to protect me from that... but it's a another damned good reason to dig in my heels and refuse to give them an inch on a matter of human rights. They seem to believe there's a huge moral difference between wanting to shoot me, and wanting someone else to shoot me, but frankly I don't see it.

But even on that, it's a dubious argument about carrying a gun as protection for it.

No one can shoot you from behind you don't see? If mob of dozens of armed militia members came at you shooting you, you think your gun would prevent it? On the other hand, you simply having a gun creates some risk to others - not to mention that the same right giving others guns puts you in more danger.

I own several fire extinguishers. I collect them because I think they're pretty. I mean, they don't guarantee that my house won't burn down and that I won't be burned alive in it... but they improve my odds, and I like that.

If someone shoots me from behind, I die. I'm okay with that. If I'm attacked by a mob of dozens of nutcases, I die; I might take a couple with me, which I'm a little happier with. My gun does increase some risks to some others, this is true, but it also reduces some risk to some others; I consider it a net positive, especially when you include the benefit to my personal health and safety.

Every Constitutional right that we have poses some danger to the lives and livelihoods of innocent people, but I take it practically as an article of faith that it's better for the people to have each and every single one of those dangerous rights than for the government to have a monopoly on them. Hard drink and drugs are dangerous, but could they possibly kill as many people as Prohibition and the War on Drugs? Encryption facilitates terrorism and the trade in child pornography, but it saves the lives of whistleblowers. Fox News. Ernest Miranda. Scientology.

Terrible, terrible things, all of them. But the power to destroy them is the power to destroy anyone, and the State destroys anything that threatens it before it destroys what threatens the People... if it destroys threats to the People at all.

 

[Antiwar]

... And seriously, any "liberal" and any other minority who's giving up their guns in this country, right now, instead of buying more and taking them fishing is out of their goddamned minds..

With respect:

Not at all. You're clinging to barbaric weapons instead of demanding a more civilized society. In doing so, you're adding to the chaos of gun violence, and giving approval of US militarism's violence and threat of violence. We're headed to more of a US police state and more of an world police state dominated by US militarism.

 

[Craig234]

I own several fire extinguishers. I collect them because I think they're pretty. I mean, they don't guarantee that my house won't burn down and that I won't be burned alive in it... but they improve my odds, and I like that.

Fire extinguishers don't get stolen and used to start fires, but a major source of guns used in crimes is guns stolen from legal owners. The more guns we have the more gun crimes we have. I thought you claimed much of the country are saying they want to kill all gun owners or kill all right-wingers. I asked you to back that up. The topic then changed to that not being what you had said.

 

[Craig234]

Not at all. You're clinging to barbaric weapons instead of demanding a more civilized society. In doing so, you're adding to the chaos of gun violence, and giving approval of US militarism's violence and threat of violence. We're headed to more of a US police state and more of an world police state dominated by US militarism.

There's an old joke: A sign on a ship saying, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Gun advocates are saying, "we need to increase the number of guns until shootings are reduced." It doesn't matter how many records we set for shootings as there are more guns. Add more guns to fix it.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

With respect:

Not at all. You're clinging to barbaric weapons instead of demanding a more civilized society.

I can do both. In a more civilized society, there'd be a weapon in every holster, and in a more civilized society, they'd stay there.

In doing so, you're adding to the chaos of gun violence, and giving approval of US militarism's violence and threat of violence. We're headed to more of a US police state and more of an world police state dominated by US militarism.

You are threatening me with armed violence. You say that you're opposed to violence, but you want to send violent people against non-violent people, to actively use violence to deprive them of their passive means of violence; that's not peace and it's not justice, and it leads directly to further State aggression against peace and justice.

 

[element94]

Yeah. Basically, the Democrats can't ****ing acknowledge that the Second Amendment is really a part of the Constitution, and it's the only part of the Constitution that the GOP understands. Because, fundamentally, neither party wants to admit that the reason we have Constitutional rights is to protect all of us from all of them.

The United States government is acting consistently in violation of the legal document that defines it, and is thus illegitimate. I used to believe I could do something about that, but eventually I realized that everyone-- every. single. person.-- talking about replacing our unconstitutional government wanted to replace it with something even worse, even less constitutional.

But... you know what? If I wasn't going to give up my guns in the Clinton administration, wasn't going to give up my guns in the Bush administration, wasn't going to give them up in the Obama administration... I am sure as **** not going to give them up after 20 JAN 2017 and 06 JAN 2021. And seriously, any "liberal" and any other minority who's giving up their guns in this country, right now, instead of buying more and taking them fishing is out of their goddamned minds..

Not that anything is even close to being banned, any weapon that was legally possessed at the time of a ban or any restriction would still be legal, so no confiscation, or giving up weapons, would be possible.

 

[Antiwar]

There's an old joke: A sign on a ship saying, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Gun advocates are saying, "we need to increase the number of guns until shootings are reduced." It doesn't matter how many records we set for shootings as there are more guns. Add more guns to fix it.

With respect:

Vocal unfettered gun proliferation proponents are advocating for:

1. More deadly guns

2. In more public places

3. With less (or no) regulations

... as a solution for:

A. Gun violence

B. Social problems

 

[Lutherf]

So if laws don't work for people who are going to break it anyway, why have any laws at all- for anything?

Laws, generally, are a framework for the victims of criminal acts to get justice and, administratively, serve as a guideline for the actions of various professionals.

 

[Antiwar]

I can do both. In a more civilized society, there'd be a weapon in every holster, and in a more civilized society, they'd stay there.

With respect:

More civility doesn't come from more barbaric weapons; quite the opposite. You're pushing for more of a domestic and international police state.

You are threatening me with armed violence. You say that you're opposed to violence, but you want to send violent people against non-violent people, to actively use violence to deprive them of their passive means of violence; that's not peace and it's not justice, and it leads directly to further State aggression against peace and justice.

No, I'm not. I want US government barbaric weapons to be abolished, first. The People's peashooters aren't the main problem; the US's nuclear arsenal is one of two main existential crises.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Not that anything is even close to being banned, any weapon that was legally possessed at the time of a ban or any restriction would still be legal, so no confiscation, or giving up weapons, would be possible.

So... I don't know you, I don't know what you have or haven't said before, but: why do anti-gun celebrities and politicians keep trying to tell gun owners that they don't want to confiscate our guns or push for total bans on non-hunting weapons, when they know we can hear them when they're telling their supporters that's exactly what they want?

You're telling me this right now, but how many threads do you think I could dig up where other people are calling for exactly that?

And why do they call me "crazy" or "paranoid" for believing what they tell their friends over what they want me to believe?

 

[Craig234]

I can do both. In a more civilized society, there'd be a weapon in every holster, and in a more civilized society, they'd stay there.

Have you heard the saying, "good fences make good neighbors"? His point is that fewer guns make a more civilized society. Fewer people shooting each other. Your argument is to sprinkle magic dust so that everyone has gun and is 'civilized'. But that's not how it works. What you're arguing for is, 'no fences but good neighbors'. That's not how it works.

 

[Craig234]

So... I don't know you, I don't know what you have or haven't said before, but: why do anti-gun celebrities and politicians keep trying to tell gun owners that they don't want to confiscate our guns or push for total bans on non-hunting weapons, when they know we can hear them when they're telling their supporters that's exactly what they want?

You're telling me this right now, but how many threads do you think I could dig up where other people are calling for exactly that?

And why do they call me "crazy" or "paranoid" for believing what they tell their friends over what they want me to believe?

There are people who would like to remove guns, but I think his point is that the proposals don't do that. The last ban we had - the 1994 assault weapon 'ban' - specifically excluded all guns legally owned when it took effect. It banned NEW guns being added.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

No, I'm not. I want US government barbaric weapons to be abolished, first. The People's peashooters aren't the main problem; the US's nuclear arsenal is one of two main existential crises.

Respectfully... if you force the police to give up their weapons first, how exactly do you intend to force me to give up mine?

I will not consent to this under any circumstances. I am armed as a matter of moral obligation; as long as I am capable of carrying a weapon responsibly and using it effectively, there is no argument or emotional appeal that can convince me to allow you to disarm me. You will have to compel me and you may not have to kill me immediately, but you are eventually going to have to either kill me or incarcerate me. It'll be pretty easy, since I'm not a trained fighter and... wheelchair, you know? My resistance will not be effective, but again, it will continue until you force me to stop.

Because you are wrong; it isn't the possession of weapons that makes us violent and uncivilized, it's the absence of accountability. We are violent and uncivilized because some of us can get away with it, and most of us can't. We are not uncivilized because we are violent, we are uncivilized because the people who do the most violence are insulated-- by cultural values and institutional authority-- from the consequences of that violence.

You may wish to disarm the agents of the government first, but that will not happen. Most of the people who agree with you won't agree to that, and the people with the guns certainly won't. High-minded idealism about living in a weaponless society always starts at the bottom... and ends there.

 

[Antiwar]

Respectfully... if you force the police to give up their weapons first, how exactly do you intend to force me to give up mine?

I will not consent to this under any circumstances. I am armed as a matter of moral obligation; as long as I am capable of carrying a weapon responsibly and using it effectively, there is no argument or emotional appeal that can convince me to allow you to disarm me. You will have to compel me and you may not have to kill me immediately, but you are eventually going to have to either kill me or incarcerate me. It'll be pretty easy, since I'm not a trained fighter and... wheelchair, you know? My resistance will not be effective, but again, it will continue until you force me to stop.

Because you are wrong; it isn't the possession of weapons that makes us violent and uncivilized, it's the absence of accountability. We are violent and uncivilized because some of us can get away with it, and most of us can't. We are not uncivilized because we are violent, we are uncivilized because the people who do the most violence are insulated-- by cultural values and institutional authority-- from the consequences of that violence.

You may wish to disarm the agents of the government first, but that will not happen. Most of the people who agree with you won't agree to that, and the people with the guns certainly won't. High-minded idealism about living in a weaponless society always starts at the bottom... and ends there.

With respect:

You're like a Luddite. Guns and the domination paradigm are on the way out, or else humanity will very likely be on their way out. You clinging to barbaric weapons validates the federal government clinging to their bigger and widely used barbaric weapons versus trying to hold the federal government accountable. You and anyone clinging to barbaric weapons are making the world that much worse. The People's peashooters aren't doing anything positive, and are probably political pacifiers, in most cases ("The federal government isn't that tyrannical since I still have barbaric weapons").

 

[element94]

So... I don't know you, I don't know what you have or haven't said before, but: why do anti-gun celebrities and politicians keep trying to tell gun owners that they don't want to confiscate our guns or push for total bans on non-hunting weapons, when they know we can hear them when they're telling their supporters that's exactly what they want?

You're telling me this right now, but how many threads do you think I could dig up where other people are calling for exactly that?

And why do they call me "crazy" or "paranoid" for believing what they tell their friends over what they want me to believe?

I try to block out the lunatic fringe from both sides. The U.S. government knows there is no way to try to confiscate guns that would, shall I say, turn out well.