Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | The John Byrne Forum Page of 2 Next >>
Topic: Right to Bear Which Arms? Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne

Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 126475
Posted: 21 October 2021 at 7:47am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

ARTICLE ON GUN CONTROL
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 28782
Posted: 21 October 2021 at 7:55am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

With the Supreme Court that’s now in place, is it even realistic to think
anything would change?

Edited by Brian Miller on 21 October 2021 at 7:56am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Charles Valderrama
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4325
Posted: 21 October 2021 at 12:31pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

"If the Constitution had been written in the 1880s instead of the 1780s, the Framers would have been much more aware of the pace of innovation."

THIS is the most clear argument for WHY the 2nd Amendment needs to change... but gun manufacturers are the reason why it won't.

-C!
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 13941
Posted: 21 October 2021 at 1:21pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

The founding fathers put the second amendment there for a reason. It would seem logical that the reason was the reason they felt compelled to explicitly state: the security of a free State. For which they reasoned a well-regulated militia was necessary. You would have to assume the arms of the militia were intended to keep pace with whatever innovations they might face in maintaining the security of the free State.

I don't think the wording of the constitution is much help, therefore, in arguing against gun ownership, given the (possibly wonky) interpretation is there already that any individual is allowed a gun whether they are anything to do with a militia or the security of the State. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However, common sense and the ninth amendment might argue the second amendment does not hold absolute sway. The natural right of self preservation suggests civilians should not be walking around with these kinds of weapons casually in day-to-day life. And the ninth amendment says: the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

At the very least, you'd think even if everyone has a right to own a gun  to maintain the security of the state, that a nice sensible law would be that in everyday life it should be stored securely at home until such a time as it was required to rise up against that tyrannical government that one day is a-comin'...



Edited by Peter Martin on 21 October 2021 at 1:22pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 126475
Posted: 21 October 2021 at 1:38pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

The founding fathers put the second amendment there for a reason. It would seem logical that the reason was the reason they felt compelled to explicitly state: the security of a free State. For which they reasoned a well-regulated militia was necessary. You would have to assume the arms of the militia were intended to keep pace with whatever innovations they might face in maintaining the security of the free State.

•••

Hollywood notwithstanding, how many here think a bunch of weekend warriors would really be able to protect their state’s “security” if all the usual lines of defense were gone?

“Minute men” would be a description of how long they’d LAST!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3655
Posted: 21 October 2021 at 5:19pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

It has been years now since a majority of the Supreme Court held that the first words of the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... were a non-binding and impotent (my word, not theirs) prefatory clause.  With the only clause having any real teeth was the active clause: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

Personally, I find this rich with irony.  For DECADES conservative politicians, scholars and jurists have been excoriating more liberal judges for "finding" things in the Constitution that do not exist. Here we have a case of conservatives seeing words that DO exist and they act like they are NOT there!!

Marc


Edited by Marc Baptiste on 22 October 2021 at 8:23am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mike Devlin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 May 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 186
Posted: 22 October 2021 at 3:23am | IP Logged | 7 post reply

'Minute Men' LOL
Thanks, JB! 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Philippe Negrin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 01 August 2007
Location: France
Posts: 2587
Posted: 22 October 2021 at 5:50am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

The most important words to me : "a well regulated militia"
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 126475
Posted: 22 October 2021 at 6:58am | IP Logged | 9 post reply

There are often complaints that the Second Amendment is "hard to read" because it's "inside out", but it's really no more than the formal phrasing of the time.

In modern English, it would read "A well regulated militia is needed to protect the security of a state, so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be messed with!"

A definite problem arises tho, when those arms, and not invaders, are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. It begins to have echoes of the old joke, "The operation was a complete success, but the patient died."

Back to Top profile | search
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6482
Posted: 22 October 2021 at 11:25am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

But how is the militia well regulated in the current times?

What does well regulated actually look like? I don’t see that part
anywhere
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3655
Posted: 22 October 2021 at 12:19pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

James,

That is where the federal and state legislatures were to come in an fill in the gaps - similar to where the Constitution says the states may regulate "time, place and manner" of elections; they don't spell out WHAT time, WHERE or in WHAT manner, of course, those are for lawmakers to flesh out.

However, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, it seems today's Supreme Court has chosen to foreclose on almost all "regulations" the federal or state legislatures want to institute in favor of an unfettered individual right to bear arms (which the amendment does NOT say).  Again, what happened to "well-regulated" which it DOES clearly spell out??!!

Marc
Back to Top profile | search
 
ron bailey
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 October 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 243
Posted: 24 October 2021 at 9:29am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

And shouldn't there be a plethora of legitimately registered militias to which all these gun owners belong? < id="protanopia"> < id="deuteranopia"> < id="tritanopia">
Back to Top profile | search
 

Page of 2 Next >>
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE