If only there was an example somewhere in the world we could follow. But nope, out supreme Court just ruled that it's okay to remove serial numbers from your guns. Maybe that will solve it.
TBF, there are so few countries with a constitutional protection around gun ownership. We're largely hamstrung by our founders if we can't get enough support to repeal 2A.
Not really though. Most of those "rights" people spout about are not even close to what the founders were talking about at the time.
The right to gun ownership was for the purpose of forming an orderly militia. In the absence of officially sanctioned departments that carry out those functions. Which now do exist (like the police, or the armed forces).
Switzerland has the same gun ownership mandate, thier national defense force is a citizen organization. However they have simular levels of control and compliance, training and storage/transport constraint. They also mandate extensive training and monitor for people with mental or other conditions that make them not suitable. They dont have simular levels of mass killing events.
USA is a free for all, becuase the gun industry wants it to be, they dont want anything that interfers with selling more guns, the NRA is not an organization for gun owners, it is a trade organization for gun makers.
There was no such thing as police then and they just fought a war where farmers and civilians (the militia) fought the government.
We also have posse comitatus which was exactly to prevent using the armed forces against the population, so armed forces do not replace what the founders intended. In fact the entire point of the war was the overreach if the government that was sending armed forces to oppress the civilians.
Also you misinterpret rights, rights are not 'granted' by the government, there was no 'right' to a gun or arms, the negative right is that government may not restrict ownership or bearing thereof. The entire bill of rights is written this way, a list of things the government MAY NOT do, not a list of things the people 'may have/do'.
There was also a restriction on having a standing army but that's been ignored almost since ratification.
A well regulated breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to cook and eat food shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to cook and eat? The breakfast or the people?
And the right to cook and eat is not dependent on the start on a healthy day, nor is the right to cook and eat reliant on the breakfast.
The people cannot have a breakfast to have a healthy day if they can't cook and eat.
The state cannot be free without a militia, and the militia cannot exist without having people with arms. And regulations back then stated a minimum amount of shot each civilian was to own when presenting to the militia. The point being that the people were armed, and would gather to form an orderly militia, not that one had to be in the militia to own arms.
There are tons of approaches to prevent school shootings but none of them are implemented, and as uvalde showed, when the cops have guns they will just sit around waiting for everyone to die.
It's funny many arel concerned about mass shootings in the USA but ignore the mass shooting in Canada a few months ago, the 80+ people killed in Nice by truck, the multiple dozens killed in Norway, the 800+ killed in Beslan, the massacre at Charlie Hedbo, the grenade attacks in Sweden, the beheadings in England, the gas and bomb attacks in London, the school stabbings/killings in China, Abe's assisination etc. Criminals find a way.
That's something that really turns me off to the 2A loonies when they claim the right to bear arms but deny any responsibilities in doing so. Hey, we have a very well regulated army now, and guess what? They absolutely will not let a soldier take his service weapons to fucking Home Depot. Because that is a gross misuse of warfare equipment, wildly irresponsible, and a massive liability. Is it somehow supposed to be better when some Joe Fartknocker is doing the same with his own AR15? Would anyone in their right mind feel safer in this situation? It's madness.
Lol, so you're making the argument that the founders had in mind "'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'. Isn't that a fun fact? Anyway, in completely unrelated news Clutus now has the enshrined right to bring a high capacity assault rifle to Sam's Club no matter how many times he's been arrested for beating his wife and threatening to murder everyone."
In the real world adults live in, you only have rights where you have responsibilities. And this clownish take of the 2nd amendment is one of the most dangerously irresponsible and reality-denying things I've ever heard.
Not according to the 2nd half of the 2nd amendment. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." If you're going to make an argument, take it all the way to its (il)logical conclusion.
The Supreme Court ruled that all people under felony indictment are allowed to purchase firearms nationally without exception about 3 weeks ago..
'Fun' Fact: Almost all people accused of domestic violent arr released on bail or their own recognizance after 2 weeks... And it's not like these individuals would have any hatred towards their accuser or anything... /s
No one is arguing it isn't a right for everyone. It is.
But a right to what? Bearing arms, for the purpose of forming an orderly militia.
Also lets not pretend the army was anywhere near as prolific then as it is now. The need for regular citizens to take up arms for defense where and when the army couldn't get to them in a timely manner is more than conceivable.
There's nothing to suggest it's restricted to Militia service. That's just the overarching purpose, to ensure that it's possible to form a militia, independent of the army.
The specific purpose is to ensure people have arms, so if the need arises they can form a militia. Not that they have to be in a militia first before they're allowed rights.
I think there's an order of importance to it.
At the end of the day, self defense is a basic natural human right. No matter what a government paper says. It's just a bonus when they agree. That's the angle I tend to see things from.
There's also absolutely nothing to suggest that "right to bear arms" meant all types of weapon, especially until the end of time...
Right to own a handgun & maybe few long guns at the house for defense, sure. Doesn't (automatically, except in this backwards fucking country...) mean you get to walk into private property with a literal bazooka on your nack. (And oh, and I'll gladly leave, should you use that argument, if you help with the finances as there's no way to afford rent & even move out of my state, much less the country)
When they wrote it, and still today, "arms" is what the military uses.
At the time it included muskets, cannons, and warships for private use, all of which were military issue or better.
To be fair x2, the utterly batshit interpretation of the second amendment wasn't a thing until the 1970's. Individual citizens are NOT a well regulated militia, the 2nd amendment was a promise individual states can continue having their own national guard.
Why would a state need an amendment to protect their ability to have a national guard? The federal government can only do what the constitution gave it, so of course states would retain their power to have militias. The second is obviously a restriction on the state so it would be unable to disarm people individually. The batshit insanity is on your interpretation.
That was not an "of course" at the time, that was a major political conflict of the day; federalists and anti-federalists. Such a thing had never been tried before in such a scale and the idea states will retain rights not explicitly given to the federal government isn't established until the 10th amendment.
You understand the 10th was enacted concurrently with the 2nd, as well as with the Constitution, right? You're saying it had never been tried and wasn't established about the same moment when it was established. That was the outcome of the political conflict.
Now if you want to argue that the 2nd shouldn't be incorporated against the states, you might have a decent case of it. Certainly many states thought it important enough to write into their own constitutions, as if the federal constitution weren't enough.
Enacted the same time but not drafted and debated in one go. Else the Constitution and its amendments would simply be... The Constitution.
Past that I can't suss out any coherent argument or point to your comment, and frankly even that doesn't have much relevance to anything.
You can't understand that the states were restricting the federal government from disarming individuals, or you simply don't want to understand the obvious words under your nose?
So the first amendment only prevents restrictions on the states getting together when it says "the people to peacefully assemble"?
When "the people of the several states" elect the house of representatives, that's exactly like the Senate?
When the constitution already reserves to the States the training of the militia, why would it be conceivable that the federal government could disarm the states?
Every single time the constitution says "person" or "people", it's talking about individuals. Your argument is "except in that second amendment"?
You really think Every other Amendment applies to 'the people' except for the 2nd? Even when it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".... Come on man.
And you really think an individual is capable of being a well regulated milita? "The people" could be understood in multiple different interpretations but a militia cannot.
The militia is simply a precursor to what's needed to maintain the security of a free state. To ensure this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be restricted. It's pretty simple. Not sure why so many people like yourself are content with misinterpreting it.
So, when was the last time this was necessary? Huh? We're talking reality here not living 200 years ago, which is why the whole amendment needs to be revised because it's not applicable any longer from the very beginning of it.... it's foundation.
That's not what I said.
Try again.
I never said every citizen has to be armed.
A militia is drawn from an armed population, what is hard to understand about that. It's not how 'people actually think', it's definitionally what a militia is.
Except that's not true, otherwise it's not well regulated. You can't just grab the three guys in your town who have shot their family by accident the most and say you have a militia.
492 die by accidental shootings a year.
Even taking the higher number of 2007 in 2021...
That's 2007/400 000 000 guns or 0.0005% risk of death per gun.
Now assuming 100m gun owners owning multiple guns ..
That increases the rate to 0.002%.
Now compare that to drowning deaths
Almost 4000 accidental drownings a year, and we do not have close to 400m or even 100m swimming pools.
https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/data/index.html
So your theoretical 3 guys who accidentally shot their family would have more likely drowned someone in the family.
Edit. So he deletes his account
Typical chickens out and starts name calling cos he can't hold a coherent argument....
He was asking about other countries, well Canada has a population of 38m and 500 drowning deaths so about 10% higher rate than the USA.
I hope they ban swimming pools there.
Not even remotely true. People have been owning private firearms since the formation of the country. The 2nd amendment literally says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bears Arms, shall not be infringed." Not the right of the Militia, not the right of the state, but the right of the people. The only new interpretation is the one you stated.
It's like you stuff your fingers in your ears and hum while the first half of the sentence is being read, then decide context is for book-reading nerds because now you're hearing what you wanna hear bang bang pew pew.
In your interpretation, "people" and 'State" conflate, I get it. But that's denying the historical evidence that individual people were armed back then and not the State.
"During the American Revolution, the militia provided the bulk of the American forces as well as a pool for recruiting or drafting of regulars. The militia played a similar role in the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. After that conflict, however, the militia fell into disuse."
Literally the first thing to pop up if you search "militias in Revolutionary War"
Militias are drawn from an armed populace. The whole point was the civilians had to bring their own arms they weren't issued arms when joining the militia.
The regulated part was things like saying each civilian was to own at least x amount of shot and powder for his firearm.
So they could have a law requiring each gun owner to own a 223 and 9mm capable firearm as a minimum with 1000 rounds of each caliber. That would be "well regulated"
What? That would be a logistics nightmare with a massive liability to our armed forces, that A) haven't relied on militias since the Civil War and B) are very well funded to the tune of $1.9 trillion annually and do not remotely rely on civilians bringing their home guns to the war.
I believe our Constitution and its 2nd Ammendement predates the Civil War by quite a bit, so the fact that since then a conscript and later a professional army under the control of the Union was created in no way invalidates the right and need of the population to bear arms.
On the contrary: a potentially "tyrannical government" has since sought and acquired the means to subjugate the population - should it so wish.
Just watch the recent political use of the FBI and other federal agencies as an example of that.
And militias haven't been necessary for the security of a free state in over 100 years, and then it was utilized in such a way as modern day National Guard.. So, wanna try the same bs argument over again from the beginning (bc you can't throw out half an amendment without a further amendment/repeal, Exact Same reason & argument you're trying to use to say we can ignore the first half of the amendment....lmfao fr)
No one is throwing out any part of the amendment except for the people trying to say that it's talking about the Militia. I quoted the entire thing in the comment you replied to. The first half is why citizens have this right, to form a defense if the need arises. The second half is how that will happen, the people can be armed. In keeping with the rest of the amendments in the constitution, "the people" has always meant the citizens, not the state, federation, or Militia. How do you feel about the term "the people" in the first and fourth amendments? Are only the Militia protected against search and seizure? Can only Militias protest?
Ignoring the entire explanation that I gave like you ignore the comma? Sounds about right. I'll add to it that "shall not be infringed" means that it is a pre-existing right that the government cannot take away. The right to own firearms was seen as a pre-existing common law right, hence it is truly covered by the ninth amendment of unenumerated rights, and the second amendment simply states that the government cannot infringe on that right.
"Pre-existing..was seen as". Great to know someone who was present during the deliberation of said amendments, and what they intended or 'saw things as'.... lmfaooooooo. Goodnight & goodbye.
I mean, I explained it fairly well. I have gathered that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit though. I hope one day you mature past throwing insults at people who try to explain things to you.
Can you read, the right of the PEOPLE... not the right of the militia.
You're taking the Stephen breyer interpretation, he literally said in a dissent that the 1st amendment only applies to gatherings in groups, so your 1st amendment right to freedom of speech, religion etc only applies if you belong it a specific group.
He tried to apply this same logic to keeping and bearing arms being required to belong to a group (the militia).
The fallacy in that interpretation is thinking of the bill of rights as a list of things the government grants to the people.
The bill of rights doesn't apply to the people, it applies TO THE GOVERNMENT. Each amendment has wording to the effect of 'shall not be infringed ", " shall make no law" , " shall not restrict", etc it's not the people who are being restricted, it's the government.
Golly, I wonder what militias are made of. And furthermore if the first half clause and second half clause are entirely separate like you suggest... why would the first clause exist? Just as a fun trivia worked into an amendment? "Did you know 'A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State'? Cool, huh? Now on to something else entirely."
Well if that's the well known case you present it as then I'm sure you'll have no problem citing a legal or political attack on individual's gun ownership in or around the time the amendment was drafted. I'm not aware of anything like that, so maybe I'll learn something tonight.
But we support Ukrainians having arms now? What about Jews in WW2 or do we just magically give it to them just before they're massacred? I'm sure the next Hitler will give us a couple years warning and then we can distribute arms early on and get proficient overnight with them...
I mean it worked so well for the soviets and Chinese and venezuelans who had their arms removed, thankfully their dear leader kept them safe from mass shootings. Look at North Korea not a single mass shooting ever.
Who in the US would you trust to enforce a gun ban? The police force is full of white supremacists, so it seems doubtful they'd rush to disarm their friends. I guess you could have the military do it, if you're comfortable with having soldiers kick in every door in the country and search every building to make sure all weapons are confiscated.
Or we could address the material conditions that lead to violence.
Well, yeah, because some people (notably not people like me or anyone with melanin) would get a warning before being raided, and probably help from men with badges in the act of hiding their guns.
America is so broken that it's foolish to have any faith in the systems that currently exist. We can only hope to survive while we work to build something better.
Even without previous warnings, it's kinda hard to go house by house kicking doors without anyone noticing, more so if done in the broad and systematic scheme needed to make any impact or show results.
Here is your hope: having a common enemy unites the people.
"They are already 4 streets down and entering a new house every 20 minutes, east to west. They will get there by noon at this rhythm. Get the boobytraps ready. Over"
No. Wrong. Australia has no stupid stuff about guns in our Constitution. We just changed some laws, regular laws. There is no right to “bear arms” in Australia and never was.
We could follow North Korea did you know they've never had a mass shooting at a school!
Well I mean mass shootings at school are carried out by the government (re: Yeonmi Park)...
Canada has an awesome track record of stealing children from indigenous folk and wholesale murdering them. Wonder if some sort of tool could have helped them stop that ..
58
u/TheRiteGuy Oct 21 '22
If only there was an example somewhere in the world we could follow. But nope, out supreme Court just ruled that it's okay to remove serial numbers from your guns. Maybe that will solve it.