Celebrating The 2nd Amendment One Fine Firearm At A Time

[RadOncDoc21]

No.

Terrorism has a very specific definition: the use or threat of violence, for the purpose of instilling fear to promote a political end.

Words have meaning. You can’t just make up words, or make up definitions for existing words to suit your argument of the moment.



There you go again. The term “assault rifle” has a specific definition: a select-fire weapon chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

A semi-automatic rifle is not an “assault rifle”.



And again.

The definition of a WMD is a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. This term has been in use for many decades and is the foundation of a number of international treaties, not to mention the US strategic policy concerning use of our own WMDs.

Since ‘round about the time the Patriot Act was passed, in order to aid prosecutors, the term WMD has been inserted in some laws for emotional effect and to enhance sentences.

Just a day or two ago some stupid air traffic controller was charged with making a WMD because he had a pipe bomb. So, while I’ll acknowlwdge that you’re not necesssrily alone in your misuse of the term, the company you keep in your misuse of the term isn’t very flattering.

A pipe bomb is not a WMD. Neither is any gun.



You’re still making arguments that have been responded to multiple times already in this thread.

Twice already I’ve responded to your comment about personally owning nuclear weapons, and agreed that you can’t do so, that the Constitution doesn’t protect any such right, and laid out a specific rationale for why not, and why rifles are different.

Why on earth would you write

You don’t know any such thing; indeed I’ve written the very opposite in this very thread.


What exactly is your purpose in this discussion if you don’t even read or respond to the things people actually write?

So your argument is that since my use of terms such as “terrorism, WMD, and assault rifle” are wrong, there can never be an argument for banning “scary guns”?

“scary gun”- A gun that can kill a lot of people in one setting. A gun that I would consider a WMD. An assault rifle and yes a semi-automatic.

I see it’s either all or none with you folks! I’ll take my chances in Chicago any day vs rural town USA.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

the argument you are hearing is that some people misusing semi automatic rifles does not negate the useful and appropriate right of others to own them

I can accept this argument even though obviously I don’t agree. I rather there be some restrictions in place to protect people.

 

[Southpaw]

@pgg and @psychbender thank you for your sacrifice

 

[pgg]

Thank you, it’s my privilege and honor to serve.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

The problem with violence and crime is largely economic and grounded in broken / single-or-no-parent families, drug abuse (and misguided War on Drugs), and the despair produced by poverty.

The problem with violence and crime, yes.
The problem of tens of thousands of deaths annually versus dozens in other advanced countries, not a chance.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I want ordinary citizens, the American public at large, to be armed (so did the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights). I want individuals to have the capacity for violence. I want them to be dangerous. I accept the risk of occasional crazy people shooting random bystanders.

You are being dishonest with yourself if you think ANYONE with power in the American government fears armed resistance. They do NOT. They have ZERO fear of a potential armed and organized populace.

They fear the vote, and they fear campaign money/support drying up. That is all.

The ones who fear the armed populace are the rank-and-file local, state and federal officers that have to deal with an armed and poorly regulated populace. That’s a major reason why so many citizens are killed by police officers who usually have no idea who they are confronting on the streets. Death by law enforcement is a major by-product of our poorly-regulated gun toting society.

 

[pgg]

The problem with violence and crime, yes.
The problem of tens of thousands of deaths annually versus dozens in other advanced countries, not a chance.

Read this article and tell me what you think, if you have time.

The Assault Weapon Myth

I think it's a good article.


We have a very recent SCOTUS decision affirming the right of individuals to keep handguns. Handguns aren't going anywhere. Even though rifle homicides are an inconsequentially small number, rifles represent the only target for a ban that's even remotely viable in court. It's not too surprising that the gun control lobby still clings to that goal.

The great irony of this debate is that we all know and understand that violence is rooted in poverty, economic inequalities, and despair. (And the War On Drugs, but that's not exactly unrelated.) On the whole, the Democratic Party appears more interested in addressing these issues, but their obsession with gun control is absolute poison to their electoral chances.

Imagine what you could've accomplished if the 1994 & 2010 midterms hadn't been such bloodbaths, or if the 2016 election hadn't hinged on a SCOTUS nominee. If the -D tag next to a candidate's name didn't imply support for gun control. There is no upside to gun control to your party. But you can't stop.

 

[Southpaw]

They fear the vote, and they fear campaign money/support drying up. That is all.

Putting our debate on hold for a bit, @pooh & Annie’s quote bears worth repeating. It’s absolute truth, for both political parties.

 

[Southpaw]

The great irony of this debate is that we all know and understand that violence is rooted in poverty, economic inequalities, and despair. (And the War On Drugs, but that's not exactly unrelated.) On the whole, the Democratic Party appears more interested in addressing these issues, but their obsession with gun control is absolute poison to their electoral chances.

Imagine what you could've accomplished if the 1994 & 2010 midterms hadn't been such bloodbaths, or if the 2016 election hadn't hinged on a SCOTUS nominee. If the -D tag next to a candidate's name didn't imply support for gun control. There is no upside to gun control to your party. But you can't stop.

I’ll read the article, and I absolutely agree with your thoughts on the Dems. You’re right about the roots of violence, but there’s no denying the fact that our extreme high number of deaths from guns relative to other countries is a simple matter of availability/guns in circulation.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I’ll read the article, and I absolutely agree with your thoughts on the Dems. You’re right about the roots of violence, but there’s no denying the fact that our extreme high number of deaths from guns relative to other countries is a simple matter of availability/guns in circulation.

The majority of U.S. Citizens support reasonable gun regulations. But, that means a shift away from the concept of "banning" most firearms and instead a focus on enforcing existing laws and regulations with perhaps, tighter rules on AR15 ownership.

 

[pgg]

The majority of U.S. Citizens support reasonable gun regulations. But, that means a shift away from the concept of "banning" most firearms and instead a focus on enforcing existing laws and regulations with perhaps, tighter rules on AR15 ownership.

Just AR15s?

Not Garands? Mini14s? Or do you mean all semi-automatic rifles?


Did you know that the government's defense in US vs Miller (the 1939 challenge to the 1934 NFA) was that some of the guns the law regulated weren't in military use? Specifically, a shotgun with a barrel under 18 inches. They actually argued that the 2nd Amendment only protected military type weapons for the militia.* And this was a court case that gun control advocates won and continue to cite as precedence supporting further gun control.


* Where I think this decision erred was in using the post Militia Act re-definition of militia, not the militia as defined and used in the Constitution. But the Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means.


edit - screwed up a date

 

[deleted480308]

The majority of U.S. Citizens support reasonable gun regulations. But, that means a shift away from the concept of "banning" most firearms and instead a focus on enforcing existing laws and regulations with perhaps, tighter rules on AR15 ownership.

what tighter rules?

 

[RadOncDoc21]

what tighter rules?

From my understanding, you stated that there can’t be any kind of ban, so logistically it doesn’t matter he says.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

 

[deleted480308]

From my understanding, you stated that there can’t be any kind of ban, so logistically it doesn’t matter he says.

Clearly stating your point is how this works. I want to know what a “reasonable gun owner” thinks is a good tighter restriction to enact on everyone in the country because some people misuse guns

 

[deleted480308]

View attachment 225357

Or we could just prosecute the murderer

 

[pgg]

View attachment 225357

No one here has made any of these arguments.

No one here has demanded a travel ban.
No one here has demanded a wall.
No one here has demanded more cops and prisons.
No one here has offered thoughts and prayers.

Except for the thoughts and prayers, which are merely meaningless, those things are not just stupid, but actually counterproductive. contrary to basic principles of freedom.

Who are you arguing with?

I can post memes too. This is what you're doing:

You're screaming at the sky while people around you are engaged in conversation.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

No one here has made any of these arguments.

No one here has demanded a travel ban.
No one here has demanded a wall.
No one here has demanded more cops and prisons.
No one here has offered thoughts and prayers.

Except for the thoughts and prayers, which are merely meaningless, those things are not just stupid, but actually counterproductive. contrary to basic principles of freedom.

Who are you arguing with?

I can post memes too. This is what you're doing:

You're screaming at the sky while people around you are engaged in conversation.

Obviously, I’ve struck a nerve with you some time ago and I’ll step down from this discussion for now.

My post from above was to demonstrate how this country responds to these mass killings and when it comes down to it, there is no reasonable approach to a solution.

I’ll return soon after the next random mass killing and I’m sure at that time, nothing will change.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

California requires all gun sales to go through a dealer. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, although some do object to the cost and government interference in what they view as private sale of private property.




Please don’t misuse the “well regulated militia” phrase.

“Well regulated” means capable and competent. Not administered by, controlled by, or organized by any government or non-government body.

Similarly, “militia” didn’t refer to a group administered by, controlled by, or organized by, any government or non-government body. Prior to the Militia Act Of 1903, the militia was “a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range." Any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment must use that definition, as opposed to the post-1903 organized vs unorganized legal definitions.


The 2nd Amendment, read correctly, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in light of the need for a capable and competent armed populace.

It is inaccurate to say the 2nd Amendment either requires or implies a need for regulation of the right to keep and bear arms.

Just AR15s?

Not Garands? Mini14s? Or do you mean all semi-automatic rifles?


Did you know that the government's defense in US vs Miller (the 1939 challenge to the 1934 NFA) was that some of the guns the law regulated weren't in military use? Specifically, a shotgun with a barrel under 18 inches. They actually argued that the 2nd Amendment only protected military type weapons for the militia.* And this was a court case that gun control advocates won and continue to cite as precedence supporting further gun control.


* Where I think this decision erred was in using the post Militia Act re-definition of militia, not the militia as defined and used in the Constitution. But the Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means.


edit - screwed up a date

I'm trying to approach this discussion from a Originalist perspective, as opposed to using reading the Constitution in today's language, so please help me out (and I'm by no means a legal scholar) see how you approach it. Give that you say a militia is a subset of the general populace:

Article 1, Section 8 says that "Congress shall have power . . .To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" and Article 2 Section 2 "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

And the Bill of Rights follows the Constitution text, so we have a general populace that is only a militia when called upon by the POTUS ("into actual service of the US") and is provided for by (I assume they mean paid but possibly even provided weapons?) Congress. You were then a regular Joe until called upon then you were part of the militia. Sounds a whole lot like the active Reserve component of the DoD today, but I digress

Anyways, my point being that I disagree with you above. "Well regulated" does not mean capable or competent. One is regulated in order to be competent. You were a regulated resident/fellow in order to make you a capable and competent attending. Your methods and tools were regulated. And you were regulated by your superiors. And as I read the Constitution, the militia's superiors, when called upon, were Congress and the POTUS. Congress regulated the miltia by "organizing, arming, and disciplining." How can a militia be regulated if no one has any idea what their tools/methods are? How can the militia (a subset of the general populace) be regulated, in order to be functional and capable and competent, if we have no idea what weapons are in the hands of the general populace.

Wouldn't then a registry be completely in-line with the original intention of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment?

You are putting extra words in the Constitution if the intention of the militia was to keep a dangerous populace in order to overthrow the government when the people didn't like it. One of the stated purposes of a militia is to put down insurrections. The Declaration of Independence ("to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government") is not a legal document. The first legal document was the Constitution.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm trying to approach this discussion from a Originalist perspective, as opposed to using reading the Constitution in today's language, so please help me out (and I'm by no means a legal scholar) see how you approach it. Give that you say a militia is a subset of the general populace:

Article 1, Section 8 says that "Congress shall have power . . .To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" and Article 2 Section 2 "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

And the Bill of Rights follows the Constitution text, so we have a general populace that is only a militia when called upon by the POTUS ("into actual service of the US") and is provided for by (I assume they mean paid but possibly even provided weapons?) Congress. You were then a regular Joe until called upon then you were part of the militia. Sounds a whole lot like the active Reserve component of the DoD today, but I digress

Anyways, my point being that I disagree with you above. "Well regulated" does not mean capable or competent. One is regulated in order to be competent. You were a regulated resident/fellow in order to make you a capable and competent attending. Your methods and tools were regulated. And you were regulated by your superiors. And as I read the Constitution, the militia's superiors, when called upon, were Congress and the POTUS. Congress regulated the miltia by "organizing, arming, and disciplining." How can a militia be regulated if no one has any idea what their tools/methods are? How can the militia (a subset of the general populace) be regulated, in order to be functional and capable and competent, if we have no idea what weapons are in the hands of the general populace.

Wouldn't then a registry be completely in-line with the original intention of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment?

You are putting extra words in the Constitution if the intention of the militia was to keep a dangerous populace in order to overthrow the government when the people didn't like it. One of the stated purposes of a militia is to put down insurrections. The Declaration of Independence ("to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government") is not a legal document. The first legal document was the Constitution.

With the right of the people to keep and bears being something that expressly must not be infringed, how can you attempt to justify a registry expressly designed to control and restrict the ownership of firearms?

 

[Onefellswoop87]

With the right of the people to keep and bears being something that expressly must not be infringed, how can you attempt to justify a registry expressly designed to control and restrict the ownership of firearms?

Please show me, when in America, a registry has restricted ownership of something? Not the theoretical "they are taking our guns away" but actual restriction. I don't know any off hand and I don't feel like helping to prove your point. PGG has mentioned California's laws, but that wasn't that an outright ban of specific weapons not a registry?

But, to your question - I argued that a registry was in line with the original intent to keep a well regulated militia. I don't think anywhere I said it would be for the intention of controlling and restricting ownership of firearms. We can't have a discussion if you try to put words in my mouth.

 

[deleted480308]

Please show me, when in America, a registry has restricted ownership of something? Not the theoretical "they are taking our guns away" but actual restriction. I don't know any off hand and I don't feel like helping to prove your point. PGG has mentioned California's laws, but that wasn't that an outright ban of specific weapons not a registry?

But, to your question - I argued that a registry was in line with the original intent to keep a well regulated militia. I don't think anywhere I said it would be for the intention of controlling and restricting ownership of firearms. We can't have a discussion if you try to put words in my mouth.

your premise is that the only reason citizens may own guns is in case the govt tells them to fight as a militia member? I simply don't buy that premise looking at the situation in which that was written. This was written by a bunch of guys that were busy fighting their govt. Guys that owned cannons and warships.

I'm not sure how else we are to take a registry suggestion. It's certainly not coming from firearm advocates. It certainly isn't coming from the military establishment to ascertain fighting strength. It's coming from a portion of the population with large amounts of people that do openly and expressly want to ban some or all of our weapons. So you tell me, given all that.....in what context could you at all with a straight face imply the registry is a constitutional effort to maintain records for national defense against outside invaders?

 

[deleted480308]

also, fluff..... When You Die, What Happens to Your Guns? A Look at the Law, Part 1 | Friends and Neighbors Magazine

registration does make transfer difficult on death in some case....a reduction in firearm rights

 

[Onefellswoop87]

With the right of the people to keep and bears being something that expressly must not be infringed, how can you attempt to justify a registry expressly designed to control and restrict the ownership of firearms?

your premise is that the only reason citizens may own guns is in case the govt tells them to fight as a militia member? I simply don't buy that premise looking at the situation in which that was written. This was written by a bunch of guys that were busy fighting their govt. Guys that owned cannons and warships.

I'm not sure how else we are to take a registry suggestion. It's certainly not coming from firearm advocates. It certainly isn't coming from the military establishment to ascertain fighting strength. It's coming from a portion of the population with large amounts of people that do openly and expressly want to ban some or all of our weapons. So you tell me, given all that.....in what context could you at all with a straight face imply the registry is a constitutional effort to maintain records for national defense against outside invaders?

One of my premises was that the reason grated by the Constitution for a militia is an armed subset of the population to be called upon and provided for by the Congress and POTUS. And yes, that militia must be armed. But, the reason for a militia to be armed is to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". Congress wasn't concerned then about legislating your hunting rifle. But having a hunting rifle doesn't make you a member of the militia.

And the "guys" who wrote the constitution didn't own the warships. The US Navy did. Did they help bankroll the US? Maybe. Probably. I don't know all of those details.

I was actually mostly trying to have an academic discussion about the history of the Constitutional argument for a militia and a registy based on @pgg 's notion of a changing definition of militia. But in practical discussion, I know that a registry of guns or owners is scarier than saying Bettlejuice 3 times.

You are to take a registry suggestion (for academic historical discussion or actual proposed law) as an impetus for discussion. It is not a direct assault on your character or trying to take your personal guns away. Remember, this is an anonymous forum.

But to imply that registry = confiscation of guns as you do, I believe, is naive. We have pseudo-registries for many of our other rights and those don't have limited "ownership"/use of the rights. I talked about them in an earlier post, but to summarize:
- A registry of religious organizations - though likely primarily for tax status - no one from the government has shut down Mosques, Synagogues, or Churches
- A list of signatures (registry?) to get a permit for assembly/protests/public gatherings - and we still allow lots of public gatherings without coming after the organizers
- Journalists have at least a temporary badge and registry for events they cover for them to gain access. I don't know if there is a federal database, but I would bet lots of $$$ that there is a "registry" for every White House press event that allows journalists and Trump hasn't come after all he deems "fake news" yet
- Hunters must register for a permit to hunt. No one has come for the orange vests or hats yet.
- You have a right to counsel. Lawyers register to practice law in a state. And we have waaaaaaay too many lawyers. No one has come after them just because they are registered to practice law.

also, fluff..... When You Die, What Happens to Your Guns? A Look at the Law, Part 1 | Friends and Neighbors Magazine

registration does make transfer difficult on death in some case....a reduction in firearm rights

No where in there does it say that a federal registration of guns or owners impairs rights. Because of laws limiting to ownership of specific weapons (except for those grandfathered into law), transfer of them is illegal except though a Federal Firearm Licensee. Registration has no impact on that. Except for showing how California's law impacts people who collect/own specific weapons and expect to transfer them to a family member, I'm not sure what the point of that link was.

 

[deleted480308]

One of my premises was that the reason grated by the Constitution for a militia is an armed subset of the population to be called upon and provided for by the Congress and POTUS. And yes, that militia must be armed. But, the reason for a militia to be armed is to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". Congress wasn't concerned then about legislating your hunting rifle. But having a hunting rifle doesn't make you a member of the militia.

And the "guys" who wrote the constitution didn't own the warships. The US Navy did. Did they help bankroll the US? Maybe. Probably. I don't know all of those details.

I was actually mostly trying to have an academic discussion about the history of the Constitutional argument for a militia and a registy based on @pgg 's notion of a changing definition of militia. But in practical discussion, I know that a registry of guns or owners is scarier than saying Bettlejuice 3 times.

You are to take a registry suggestion (for academic historical discussion or actual proposed law) as an impetus for discussion. It is not a direct assault on your character or trying to take your personal guns away. Remember, this is an anonymous forum.

But to imply that registry = confiscation of guns as you do, I believe, is naive. We have pseudo-registries for many of our other rights and those don't have limited "ownership"/use of the rights. I talked about them in an earlier post, but to summarize:
- A registry of religious organizations - though likely primarily for tax status - no one from the government has shut down Mosques, Synagogues, or Churches
- A list of signatures (registry?) to get a permit for assembly/protests/public gatherings - and we still allow lots of public gatherings without coming after the organizers
- Journalists have at least a temporary badge and registry for events they cover for them to gain access. I don't know if there is a federal database, but I would bet lots of $$$ that there is a "registry" for every White House press event that allows journalists and Trump hasn't come after all he deems "fake news" yet
- Hunters must register for a permit to hunt. No one has come for the orange vests or hats yet.
- You have a right to counsel. Lawyers register to practice law in a state. And we have waaaaaaay too many lawyers. No one has come after them just because they are registered to practice law.



No where in there does it say that a federal registration of guns or owners impairs rights. Because of laws limiting to ownership of specific weapons (except for those grandfathered into law), transfer of them is illegal except though a Federal Firearm Licensee. Registration has no impact on that. Except for showing how California's law impacts people who collect/own specific weapons and expect to transfer them to a family member, I'm not sure what the point of that link was.

Private citizens absolutely owned cannons and gun ships in the time frame and were hired via letters of marquis.

And without a registry, i get to just take hold of my dead grandfathers gun. With the registry, I don’t. That is a restriction of rights. It brings the govt into a transaction that isn’t their concern

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Private citizens absolutely owned cannons and gun ships in the time frame and were hired via letters of marquis.

And without a registry, i get to just take hold of my dead grandfathers gun. With the registry, I don’t. That is a restriction of rights. It brings the govt into a transaction that isn’t their concern

Ok, I stand corrected on who owned warships at the time.

No. You are being obtuse. The theoretical registry is a list. It doesn't take away your right. If you believe it restricts your rights, then make that argument. Give an example. Link to an article that proves (or even addresses) your point.

Using California as an example from your article, it's their laws that restricts ownership of specific types of weapons (outside of those grandfathered in) and then limits transfer of those guns. It is those laws that affects the legality of taking a gun from your grandfather's estate. After his death, the theoretical registry would be updated with a new owner of such gun, with your name if you work out how it can be legally transferred. Without laws restricting the specific ownership of certain types of weapons, you can take your grandfather's gun. And then you'd still have to update a theoretical registry. See? Theoretical registry doesn't theoretically impinge on your rights.

Read your own article. Argue against the thing that affects your position. But until then I'm walking away from your echo chamber. Ciao.

 

[pgg]

I'm trying to approach this discussion from a Originalist perspective, as opposed to using reading the Constitution in today's language, so please help me out (and I'm by no means a legal scholar) see how you approach it. Give that you say a militia is a subset of the general populace:

Article 1, Section 8 says that "Congress shall have power . . .To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" and Article 2 Section 2 "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

And the Bill of Rights follows the Constitution text, so we have a general populace that is only a militia when called upon by the POTUS ("into actual service of the US") and is provided for by (I assume they mean paid but possibly even provided weapons?) Congress.

No.

The Militia Act of 1792 states

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I sometimes play one on the internet.

The "militia" very clearly were not a government run, government directed, government supplied fighting force - up until the actual moment they were called up.

A cynic might argue the militia were self-equipped so that the government wouldn't have to foot the bill to arm and equip the people when a war rolled around.

While we're considering the historical context of the times, we should also bear in mind that in those days
1) The very notion of a standing army was frightening to most of the founders. The Continental Army was essentially disbanded after the Revolutionary War.
2) Strong vs weak federal government was hotly debated ... that whole Federalist vs Anti-Federalist thing.


Yesterday I was reading a gun control thread on Fark, which could teach SDN a thing or two about memes, cat pictures, and circular / groundhog day style political arguments. I don't post there, because the threading uses 1995 technology and the trolls are thick, but I ran across a post from some random internet Constitutional scholar. I thought it was well written and addresses some of the points you bring up, so I'll just quote it in its entirety here:

posted by vygramul at The deadly assault rifle known as the AR-15 was never meant to be owned by civilians. For obvious reasons
The easiest and most accurate interpretation for the second amendment is, "The federal government may not preëmpt the formation of militias by taking everyone's guns."

Gun nuts like Jefferson are pretty obvious in their positions. But even Hamilton in Federalist 46 made it clear that citizens being armed was EXACTLY what tyrannical government feared. He even said that THAT ALONE could be enough to overthrow tyranny. (Then he went on about how having multiple levels of government was probably easily as important.)

Some simpletons might argue 46 is entirely about why the militia being callable by the feds isn't the same as a standing army. But actually paying attention to his individual arguments reveals that his views don't depart from Jefferson's as to the content of the amendments.

Throw into the mix Madison's appointee to SCOTUS saying that the 2nd amendment had an anti-usurpation mission, and Hamilton's arguments shine in their context.

Throw in Hamilton's Federalist 84 and any interpretation of the second used as proof against an individual liberty is so obviously modern that one wonders how anyone with an ounce of respect for their own intellectual integrity - and actually bothers to go read period documents - can possibly argue otherwise.

Just like no one can seriously believe the second amendment was a bar on anyone but the feds and feds alone.


Yeah, people like to bring up period regulations on gun control, but they all seem to miss one critical aspect: none of those were federal law. You know where it all goes wrong? Incorporation. You can thank the 14th amendment for Heller. And you would be right that Heller was a modern interpretation - NOT of the 2nd - but of the 14th.

But almost EVERYTHING about the 14th is modern.

Incorporation of the freedom of petition to redress grievances? 1963. Free association? '56. Freedom from quartering soldiers? '82. Search and seizure? '61. Double Jeopardy? '69. Speedy Trial? '67. Excessive bail? '71.

So, yeah, it's modern. But so are our other rights incorporated against the states.


And all of that is a separate issue from the moral positions on whether gun control is appropriate. But that would be another long post.

Anyways, my point being that I disagree with you above. "Well regulated" does not mean capable or competent. One is regulated in order to be competent. You were a regulated resident/fellow in order to make you a capable and competent attending. Your methods and tools were regulated. And you were regulated by your superiors. And as I read the Constitution, the militia's superiors, when called upon, were Congress and the POTUS. Congress regulated the miltia by "organizing, arming, and disciplining." How can a militia be regulated if no one has any idea what their tools/methods are? How can the militia (a subset of the general populace) be regulated, in order to be functional and capable and competent, if we have no idea what weapons are in the hands of the general populace.

Wouldn't then a registry be completely in-line with the original intention of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment?

You are putting extra words in the Constitution if the intention of the militia was to keep a dangerous populace in order to overthrow the government when the people didn't like it. One of the stated purposes of a militia is to put down insurrections. The Declaration of Independence ("to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government") is not a legal document. The first legal document was the Constitution.

The only "registry" that is in keeping with the intent and actual needs of the militia is this one. And it does its job well enough, having been employed in modern times.


Incidentally, thanks for posting well reasoned and interesting post.

One reason I'm here, beyond the lulz, is to constantly re-examine my positions and beliefs.

 

[deleted480308]

Ok, I stand corrected on who owned warships at the time.

No. You are being obtuse. The theoretical registry is a list. It doesn't take away your right. If you believe it restricts your rights, then make that argument. Give an example. Link to an article that proves (or even addresses) your point.

Using California as an example from your article, it's their laws that restricts ownership of specific types of weapons (outside of those grandfathered in) and then limits transfer of those guns. It is those laws that affects the legality of taking a gun from your grandfather's estate. After his death, the theoretical registry would be updated with a new owner of such gun, with your name if you work out how it can be legally transferred. Without laws restricting the specific ownership of certain types of weapons, you can take your grandfather's gun. And then you'd still have to update a theoretical registry. See? Theoretical registry doesn't theoretically impinge on your rights.

Read your own article. Argue against the thing that affects your position. But until then I'm walking away from your echo chamber. Ciao.

The registration is a part of the enforcement of that restriction

 

[pgg]

Ok, I stand corrected on who owned warships at the time.

No. You are being obtuse. The theoretical registry is a list. It doesn't take away your right. If you believe it restricts your rights, then make that argument. Give an example. Link to an article that proves (or even addresses) your point.

Using California as an example from your article, it's their laws that restricts ownership of specific types of weapons (outside of those grandfathered in) and then limits transfer of those guns. It is those laws that affects the legality of taking a gun from your grandfather's estate. After his death, the theoretical registry would be updated with a new owner of such gun, with your name if you work out how it can be legally transferred. Without laws restricting the specific ownership of certain types of weapons, you can take your grandfather's gun. And then you'd still have to update a theoretical registry. See? Theoretical registry doesn't theoretically impinge on your rights.

Read your own article. Argue against the thing that affects your position. But until then I'm walking away from your echo chamber. Ciao.

Example #1 - The California "assault weapon" ban (think it was 1991? thereabouts?) allowed current owners of such weapons, as defined in the law, to register them and retain possession until their deaths. The firearms are non-transferrable - even in death. The firearms in that registry can not be loaned, given away, sold, or bequeathed to heirs. That registry was created for the explicit purpose of eventual confiscation. And every time a person with a firearm in that registry dies, the firearm is confiscated from the estate.

Example #2 - California law has a provision for active duty members of the military, who are issued orders to service in that state, to retain possession of firearms upon registration. The specific vehicle was called a "military assault weapons permit" although it covered a wide range of firearms, including certain handguns. (Bear in mind that the firearms covered by this law aren't anything especially contentious like machine guns or silencers or other NFA-regulated firearms.) When I was ordered to California in 2009, I paid my $70 annual fee, filled out the paperwork and registered three rifles, two of which were competition target rifles based on the AR10 platform. I was issued a MAWP.

In 2010 Kamala Harris was elected State Attorney General, and in January 2011 she took office. At that time, she directed the DOJ to decline to renew all MAWPs. The state legislature did not change the law. She just arbitrarily decided that the "reason" for the issuance of the permits in the first place was insufficient, despite the specific text of the law.

I received a letter from the California Department Of Justice, which included the serial number of the three rifles I owned, informing me of this decision. I was instructed to surrender them to the police, sell them (an impossibility as they were now illegal in the state), or remove them from the state. I drove them to Phoenix and stored them at my brother's house. Other servicemembers in California at the time, who lacked family out of state, had to surrender their firearms. (I'm sure many just quietly kept them and risked the felony conviction if discovered.)


You can't tell me that firearm registries don't end in confiscation. They do. This isn't an opinion, or a prediction. They have. They do.


Also -

Using California as an example from your article, it's their laws that restricts ownership of specific types of weapons (outside of those grandfathered in) and then limits transfer of those guns.

A law that prevents transfer is nothing more than a delayed ban and confiscation.

Even if transfers are permitted but the registry is closed / future purchases prevented - the end result is still a ban. See for example the 1986 Hughes Amendment which closed the machine gun registry. Before 1986 a person could buy or manufacture a machine gun if the proper ATF paperwork, background check, and tax was paid. Today, because there are a finite number of ever-aging machine guns, the actual market cost for a $40 piece of aluminum with a pre-1986 registered serial number is in the tens of thousands of dollars. That is a de facto ban.

You can pose the argument that machine guns shouldn't be available to anyone at any price - that's a different argument. But it illustrates the fact that limitations on transfer and new registrations necessarily result in bans ... just a little bit later.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

No.

The Militia Act of 1792 states


I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I sometimes play one on the internet.

The "militia" very clearly were not a government run, government directed, government supplied fighting force - up until the actual moment they were called up.

A cynic might argue the militia were self-equipped so that the government wouldn't have to foot the bill to arm and equip the people when a war rolled around.

While we're considering the historical context of the times, we should also bear in mind that in those days
1) The very notion of a standing army was frightening to most of the founders. The Continental Army was essentially disbanded after the Revolutionary War.
2) Strong vs weak federal government was hotly debated ... that whole Federalist vs Anti-Federalist thing.

Yesterday I was reading a gun control thread on Fark, which could teach SDN a thing or two about memes, cat pictures, and circular / groundhog day style political arguments. I don't post there, because the threading uses 1995 technology and the trolls are thick, but I ran across a post from some random internet Constitutional scholar. I thought it was well written and addresses some of the points you bring up, so I'll just quote it in its entirety here:

The only "registry" that is in keeping with the intent and actual needs of the militia is this one. And it does its job well enough, having been employed in modern times.

Incidentally, thanks for posting well reasoned and interesting post.

One reason I'm here, beyond the lulz, is to constantly re-examine my positions and beliefs.

I'd have to do a whole lot more reading and refreshing my memory to address the Federalist papers. It's been quite a while since high school and undergrad US history courses. Thanks for giving me flashbacks.

The wording of the 1792 Militia act is interesting saying the member must provide for it all but the Constitution says how Congress will provide. But it's hard to provide much of anything until income tax became law. That opens up an entirely new discussion that I'm not going to touch.

Example #1 - The California "assault weapon" ban (think it was 1991? thereabouts?) allowed current owners of such weapons, as defined in the law, to register them and retain possession until their deaths. The firearms are non-transferrable - even in death. The firearms in that registry can not be loaned, given away, sold, or bequeathed to heirs. That registry was created for the explicit purpose of eventual confiscation. And every time a person with a firearm in that registry dies, the firearm is confiscated from the estate.

Example #2 - California law has a provision for active duty members of the military, who are issued orders to service in that state, to retain possession of firearms upon registration. The specific vehicle was called a "military assault weapons permit" although it covered a wide range of firearms, including certain handguns. (Bear in mind that the firearms covered by this law aren't anything especially contentious like machine guns or silencers or other NFA-regulated firearms.) When I was ordered to California in 2009, I paid my $70 annual fee, filled out the paperwork and registered three rifles, two of which were competition target rifles based on the AR10 platform. I was issued a MAWP.

In 2010 Kamala Harris was elected State Attorney General, and in January 2011 she took office. At that time, she directed the DOJ to decline to renew all MAWPs. The state legislature did not change the law. She just arbitrarily decided that the "reason" for the issuance of the permits in the first place was insufficient, despite the specific text of the law.

I received a letter from the California Department Of Justice, which included the serial number of the three rifles I owned, informing me of this decision. I was instructed to surrender them to the police, sell them (an impossibility as they were now illegal in the state), or remove them from the state. I drove them to Phoenix and stored them at my brother's house. Other servicemembers in California at the time, who lacked family out of state, had to surrender their firearms. (I'm sure many just quietly kept them and risked the felony conviction if discovered.)


You can't tell me that firearm registries don't end in confiscation. They do. This isn't an opinion, or a prediction. They have. They do.


Also -

A law that prevents transfer is nothing more than a delayed ban and confiscation.

Even if transfers are permitted but the registry is closed / future purchases prevented - the end result is still a ban. See for example the 1986 Hughes Amendment which closed the machine gun registry. Before 1986 a person could buy or manufacture a machine gun if the proper ATF paperwork, background check, and tax was paid. Today, because there are a finite number of ever-aging machine guns, the actual market cost for a $40 piece of aluminum with a pre-1986 registered serial number is in the tens of thousands of dollars. That is a de facto ban.

You can pose the argument that machine guns shouldn't be available to anyone at any price - that's a different argument. But it illustrates the fact that limitations on transfer and new registrations necessarily result in bans ... just a little bit later.

So maybe I'm playing semantics (to simply continue this conversation and to play devil's advocate) and maybe its a distinction without a difference, but it was the legislation (and Kamala Harris' decision to not renew MAWPs) that made ownership illegal. Not the registry. If they didn't mail you the letter with your serial numbers, next time you went to renew your MAWPs, then you would be denied and the result would be the same. It was an annual fee, so I'm assuming an annual letter asking for active duty exemption, so it was coming soon regardless if they kept those serial numbers on file or not. Relating to the 1989 "assault weapons ban", it wasn't the registry that allowed California law enforcement to know on people's doors to get the weapons, it was the 1989 law and then the subsequent 1999 revision of that law that gave it even broader reach and sharper teeth to enforce.

We, as a society, register lots of entities and things, some of which are related to Constitutional rights and some are not, and I continue to have a difficult time to connecting the dots that registering equals banning. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the ultimate result of a theoretical national registry.

Since this thread, a long time ago, has changed from the original post to guns' effect on society - would a registry help the larger issue of gun violence? I don't know. Maybe. A registry and subsequent data has helped with car crashes and other epidemiological cause and effects. And maybe if the systems work (unlike Texas recently), it might help. If I make a police complaint against someone for stalking and the police can see that person has at least one weapon registered and kept at the house, maybe it gets kicked to a higher priority. If every time psychiatry admits a suicidal patient they can have the social worker/law enforcement connection check the database instead of taking a suicidal patient's word for it that they don't keep guns in the house (cause its in the garage, right?), it might save a life. Does that infringe on anyone's rights? I don't think so.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

That sure didn’t take long. Again, not a “terrorist” but he did “terrorize a community”

4 dead after gunman ‘randomly picking targets’ goes on rampage in Calif., tries to enter school - The Washington Post
4 dead after gunman ‘randomly picking targets’ goes on rampage in Calif., tries to enter school — The Washington Post
https://apple.news/

By all means continue to argue about the what is in the constitution as it definitely pertains to the type of guns we have now!

 

[pgg]

1) Domestic violence resulting in a restraining order.
2) Known to have a rifle in January, which he fired during some other altercation (a stabbing?). Out on $160,000 bail.

Resident Brian Flint said he got a call in the morning that his roommate was injured and that his truck had been stolen. It turned out his neighbor was the gunman, Flint said.

“The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines,” Flint said. “We made it aware that this guy is crazy and he’s been threatening us.”

Living near the gunman was "hell," Flint said, adding the man often harassed him and his neighbors.

What additional laws could we pass that would have kept this already-prohibited person from having an already-illegal weapon while he was out on bail for another violent crime in which he used a gun?

 

[nimbus]

That sure didn’t take long. Again, not a “terrorist” but he did “terrorize a community”

4 dead after gunman ‘randomly picking targets’ goes on rampage in Calif., tries to enter school - The Washington Post
4 dead after gunman ‘randomly picking targets’ goes on rampage in Calif., tries to enter school — The Washington Post
https://apple.news/

By all means continue to argue about the what is in the constitution as it definitely pertains to the type of guns we have now!

It is so common that it is hardly worth a mention.

Statistics behind US violence

 

[nimbus]

1) Domestic violence resulting in a restraining order.
2) Known to have a rifle in January, which he fired during some other altercation (a stabbing?). Out on $160,000 bail.



What additional laws could we pass that would have kept this already-prohibited person from having an already-illegal weapon while he was out on bail for another violent crime in which he used a gun?

We already know. Other countries do it. Repeal 2A and enact restrictive gun laws like England, Australia and Japan. It’s no great mystery how to reduce gun violence and murders. But yeah, nothing can be done.

Maybe we can admit 2A is doing more harm than good at this point.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

We already know. Other countries do it. Repeal 2A and enact restrictive gun laws like England, Australia and Japan. It’s no great mystery how to reduce gun violence and murders. But yeah, nothing can be done.

Maybe we can admit 2A is doing more harm than good at this point.

Interestingly, at least in Australia, the overall homicide rate didn't really change that much with their gun ban. Admittedly their mass casualty events have dropped off, but a) they had very few of those to begin with and b) those account for such a small amount of total homicides anyway.

 

[pgg]

We already know. Other countries do it. Repeal 2A and enact restrictive gun laws like England, Australia and Japan. It’s no great mystery how to reduce gun violence and murders. But yeah, nothing can be done.

Maybe we can admit 2A is doing more harm than good at this point.

Well I've got to admit, the honesty is refreshing. Usually your side of the discussion goes to great lengths to deny any desire or intent to repeal, ban, confiscate.

 

[doctalaughs]

Interestingly, at least in Australia, the overall homicide rate didn't really change that much with their gun ban. Admittedly their mass casualty events have dropped off, but a) they had very few of those to begin with and b) those account for such a small amount of total homicides anyway.

Where are you getting this information? The initial studies showed no appreciable difference in homicides, but all the follow-up studies all agree a massive drop in both gun-related homicides, suicides and overall homicides in Australia (almost 60 percent drop and easily statistically significant!). It just took about 10 years after the laws were enacted which makes total sense. I’m sure it would take 25 years in the USA given how many guns are in circulation.

Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Where are you getting this information? The initial studies showed no appreciable difference in homicides, but all the follow-up studies all agree a massive drop in both gun-related homicides, suicides and overall homicides in Australia (almost 60 percent drop and easily statistically significant!). It just took about 10 years after the laws were enacted which makes total sense. I’m sure it would take 25 years in the USA given how many guns are in circulation.

Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org

Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics

Where are you getting a 60% drop in overall homicides? Even the Aussies say they only have a 30% since the gun ban. That sounds like a great number, but it was from 1.9 to 1.2 per 100,000. That's not overly impressive. Especially since in that same time period the US homicide rate dropped ~50%. FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low

 

[doctalaughs]

Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics

Where are you getting a 60% drop in overall homicides? Even the Aussies say they only have a 30% since the gun ban. That sounds like a great number, but it was from 1.9 to 1.2 per 100,000. That's not overly impressive. Especially since in that same time period the US homicide rate dropped ~50%. FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low

The link you’ve provided is data from 1995 to 2007 so it’s over 10 years old -showing a 30% drop.

If you read the link I posted it’s newer with data though 2014 (also citing same source data from australian govt) with a 57% drop in gun related homicide, and about 40% total homicide rate.

Also US homicide rate has dropped 50%, but not in the same timeframe we are talking about. Even from your own FBI link you can see the huge drop was before the Australian gun ban in 1996. Since then rates in the US have declined about another 20% although alot of that gain has been lost if you look at the new 2016-17 data (where rates are increasin again 5-10%).

In any case one thing to think about is the RELATIVE rates. Why do we have a rate almost 400% higher than australia?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

The link you’ve provided is data from 1995 to 2007 so it’s over 10 years old -showing a 30% drop.

If you read the link I posted it’s newer with data though 2014 (also citing same source data from australian govt) with a 57% drop in gun related homicide, and about 40% total homicide rate.

Also US homicide rate has dropped 50%, but not in the same timeframe we are talking about. Even from your own FBI link you can see the huge drop was before the Australian gun ban in 1996. Since then rates in the US have declined about another 20% although alot of that gain has been lost if you look at the new 2016-17 data (where rates are increasin again 5-10%).

In any case one thing to think about is the RELATIVE rates. Why do we have a rate almost 400% higher than australia?

True, but the 30% for the Aussies was based on the 2007 rate of 1.7 per 100,000. 4510.0 - Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia, 2015

As for our higher rate: I could be wrong but I seem to remember seeing that we had higher rates for most crimes. Why exactly that is, I don't know.

 

[deleted59964]

True, but the 30% for the Aussies was based on the 2007 rate of 1.7 per 100,000. 4510.0 - Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia, 2015

As for our higher rate: I could be wrong but I seem to remember seeing that we had higher rates for most crimes. Why exactly that is, I don't know.

given our heritage ... as a bunch of deported criminals from the uk and ireland it’s kinda curious isn’t it... we’re a bit more diverse now though

 

[deleted162650]

given our heritage ... as a bunch of deported criminals from the uk and ireland it’s kinda curious isn’t it... we’re a bit more diverse now though

Honor among thieves?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

given our heritage ... as a bunch of deported criminals from the uk and ireland it’s kinda curious isn’t it... we’re a bit more diverse now though

We had that too (looking at you Georgia).

 

[doctalaughs]

Putting aside gun control debate for a second, what the hell happened with that crazy gunman rampage in california?

Seems from reading the stories you could’ve seen that one coming from a mile away with the multiple charges, restraining orders and neighbors living in terror of the guy. How did he post bail at all?

I know we have been trying to decriminalize mental illness and shut down inpatient lockdown wards, but this guy was the textbook definition of a guy who shouldve been watched behind bars with the haldol and restraints ready for a long, long time. We can lock up millions of non-violent drug offenders but not someone like that? Someone messed up or the mandatory law need to change.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Putting aside gun control debate for a second, what the hell happened with that crazy gunman rampage in california?

Seems from reading the stories you could’ve seen that one coming from a mile away with the multiple charges, restraining orders and neighbors living in terror of the guy. How did he post bail at all?

I know we have been trying to decriminalize mental illness and shut down inpatient lockdown wards, but this guy was the textbook definition of a guy who shouldve been watched behind bars with the haldol and restraints ready for a long, long time. We can lock up millions of non-violent drug offenders but not someone like that? Someone messed up or the mandatory law need to change.

When I was in residency, I did some moonlighting on weekends at the local psych hospital. Originally had 200 beds, now was down to about 80. In the 6 months I worked there, I had 3 separate patients that I admitted more than twice in that time. I remember thinking that they were exactly the type of patient that needs to be in this place for the rest of their lives but can't be because we decided that was inhumane and expensive. So instead they got picked up by the police every other month, sent here and tuned up, then back out to repeat the cycle again.

 

[pgg]

Putting aside gun control debate for a second, what the hell happened with that crazy gunman rampage in california?

Seems from reading the stories you could’ve seen that one coming from a mile away with the multiple charges, restraining orders and neighbors living in terror of the guy. How did he post bail at all?

I know we have been trying to decriminalize mental illness and shut down inpatient lockdown wards, but this guy was the textbook definition of a guy who shouldve been watched behind bars with the haldol and restraints ready for a long, long time. We can lock up millions of non-violent drug offenders but not someone like that? Someone messed up or the mandatory law need to change.

Well -

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court held that the police have no duty to protect the public.

That may sound like a cynical and distorted interpretation of that decision, but the honest truth is that the police can't be held individually or collectively liable for failing to do their job. At least, held liable in court for failing the "serve and protect" bit of their job ... their superiors would certainly discipline and fire them if they failed to perform as traffic revenue agents.

(Jessica Gonzales sued the town of Castle Rock, CO after she repeatedly asked the police to intervene after her ex-husband violated a restraining order and kidnapped her children. They declined to do anything, and he eventually murdered the three kids, put their bodies in the trunk of his car, drove to a police station, started shooting ... only then could the police be bothered put down their donuts and respond.)


And bringing this back to the gun control debate ... in a nation whose highest court has ruled that the police don't have a duty to protect you, having the means of self defense (and the freedom to legally carry it) become more clearly important.

 

[deleted59964]

And bringing this back to the gun control debate ... in a nation whose highest court has ruled that the police don't have a duty to protect you, having the means of self defense (and the freedom to legally carry it) become more clearly important.

Yep ... the solution is definitely more guns, after all it’s working great for you all so far

 

[jwk]

We already know. Other countries do it. Repeal 2A and enact restrictive gun laws like England, Australia and Japan. It’s no great mystery how to reduce gun violence and murders. But yeah, nothing can be done.

Maybe we can admit 2A is doing more harm than good at this point.

For all the talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment - has it ever actually been tried? Has there ever been a bill submitted in Congress to start down that very long road of repealing the 2nd Amendment?

 

[DocVapor]

For all the talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment - has it ever actually been tried? Has there ever been a bill submitted in Congress to start down that very long road of repealing the 2nd Amendment?

I think all people who want to repeal it know in their heart of hearts that the quickest way to a second civil war would be the repeal of the 2nd. And they know that the ones without the guns are going to be at a distinct disadvantage.

 

[deleted162650]

Has there ever been a bill submitted in Congress to start down that very long road of repealing the 2nd Amendment?

I don't think anyone has the balls to try that. That's guaranteed political suicide for every senator except for maybe the ones from MA, NY, and The People's Socialist Republic of Kalifornistan.

I think all people who want to repeal it know in their heart of hearts that the quickest way to a second civil war would be the repeal of the 2nd. And they know that the ones without the guns are going to be at a distinct disadvantage.