The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope.
Question 1: Where is the “well regulated” system and if there is no “well regulated” system does that negate the right to bear arms?
Question 2: Specifically which arms are allowed ? Obviously, there are many arms that are prohibited. Am I allowed to "keep and bear"a tactical nuclear device?
In the absence of any regulation does that still mean the right to bear any and all arms or is the right to keep and bear arms contingent on a well regulated system?
Can this be adjudicated by SCOTUS
We’ll have to listen to what these guys have to say:
Days after a deadly mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz are expected to appear at a National Rifle Association conference in Houston this Friday, May 27, along with former president Donald Trump. All three are on the schedule to appear along with Rep. Dan Crenshaw at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) Leadership Forum at the George R. Brown Convention Center, according to an announcement.
… the announcement says they will appear during “a celebration of Second Amendment rights.”
Let me regurgitate the ways:
Thoughts and Prayers
It won’t stop all of them (so why stop any of them)
Enforce the laws we have
It’s In The CONSTITUTIION
Let them grieve
It’s too soon
Let’s look at the statistics
We need more Good Guys with Guns
The answer to that question is based more on current public opinion than anything else. The idea that anyone can have whatever weapon they want is not based on any historical precedent and obviously not on common sense. The NRA was hijacked by gun rights activists in the 1970’s and has been funded by gun manufacturers since. They have successfully caused fear, to the point that people who would have never thought of getting a gun are now afraid because there are so many guns, owned by the so-called “good guys”.
There were restrictions on the 2nd amendment around the time of the Civil War, and the famous “Tommy Gun” ban. But that was back when the NRA was sensible. Reagan saw an opportunity to get votes and ironically was shot. It’s been getting worse since then. They also convinced people this is a “state’s rights” issue, which his just cover for lobbyists, who can influence small governments much easier.
Behind the gun lobby, and other lobbies like abortion bans, is the Conservative Movement. It’s no secret. They say it out loud in their own words, and barely conceal their corporate interests behind “morality” and “balanced budget”.
[quote=“mrmhead, post:2, topic:9505”]
Let me regurgitate the ways:
Thoughts and Prayers[/quote]
Won’t do a damn thing.
IMHO, we not only need to enforce current laws and regulations, but we need stronger ones and people should not be carrying guns to go shopping. No one should bring guns to town. If they are hunters, the only time they should have rifles in their truck (automobile) is when they are going hunting, no other time. They must have their license with them at all time when they do hunt. Poachers need to be prosecuted the fullest of the law and anyone who carries a gun, except police and security, into a school needs to be prosecuted. Etc etc
The paradox of guns is that the only time they are safe is when they are unloaded and stored. Any military base will show you this. They don’t walk around locked and loaded. The only time they are useful is when the “safety” is off and they are pointed at the proper target. This is what gun rights activist refuse to see, that getting that weapon up and pointed in the right direction is difficult in the best of circumstances, nearly impossible in a situation with active shooters who don’t care who they hit.
In Buffalo, there was an ex-cop on duty as a guard. He took a bullet for others and died. The cases where someone takes down a shooter are rare. And since we moving toward a situation where everything is legal, right up until they kill someone, that will only get worse.
The really bizarre part begins after that near-fantasy situation. Let’s say Joe Worker guy kills a kid who is walking down the school corridor saying he’s going to kill children. Seems like a good shoot right? Then, let’s say that kid has an older brother who doesn’t think it was, Joe is not going to be able to return to his normal life. Let’s say it’s a store owner, defending himself from gang members, would you stand behind that counter and serve customers, just waiting for the revenge to happen? The only answer to that is more guns. I’ve had people say it would be a “law enforcement issue”. is there any response to that other than “DUH!”
And all that proves there is no regulation of any kind.
And if there is no regulation, then there is no well-regulated militia and if there is no well-regulated militia, is there a right to bear arms?
Clearly, the people who are currently bearing arms and killing people are not providing security for the State. And the people who are legally carrying their arms are not really providing security to the State either, are they?
At least not military weapons. Nobody would be foolish enough to invade the US and if military weapons were used by US citizens against other US citizens, that is just plain unthinkable, unless we become an autocracy.
Sorry if I did not make myself clear. The gist of my post was to address the problem of issuing military grade weapons.
AFAIK, fully automatic weapons are outlawed, but 30 round magazines on semi-automatic weapons are allowed. Where is the difference in potential killing power?
Moreover, the fact that fully automatic weapons are restricted to the military only, means that there is a difference in the evaluation of a “well regulated” militia. If the civil militia can be restricted to semi-automatic weapons, where is the justification to justify that determination? And if there is justification, then what is the problem in justifying stricter and more (better) regulation for civil militia.
This restriction proves there are applicable laws that see a distinction between “well regulated” military and “minimally regulated” civil militia.
In fact, for me, theses stats show that weapons possession does not explain everything.
For instance, even high, the rate of homicide is much inferior in Texas than in other southern states. And I don’t think that Texans are less armed then others people.
Other example, Corsica. Corsican people own weapons, including military ones, as many as some over armes US people. Many political and crime murders. The rate of homicide, 3, 81 per 100 000 inhabitants is much above the average rate in France, much above the rate of some northern states in USA, but inferior to the rate of most southern states
I would believe that social factors as poverty form a part.
We don’t need a civil militia when we have so many other militias and the Constitution didn’t say “civil militia”.
We’re talking about guns, not all weapons. Why own a gun? What is the purpose of owning guns? I’ve spent a lifetime without one and see no reason for one. Due to being a vegetarian, I don’t hunt. Being a Conscientious Objector, I’m not military either. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only- to kill. It has no other purpose.
Yet there are more civilian guns than people in the U.S. This is a problem unique to the U.S. We also have the weakest gun laws in the world. Why? Why so many guns? Who needs so many guns? Why does anyone need an AK 47? Why are we supporting gun manufacturers and the NRA? Why are the Repugs being paid by gun lobbyists to weaken laws so they can get rich, like any other greedy corporation? What is this desire to own so many guns and to kill for whatever reason (besides for food)?
I’ve long suspected this is the biggest culprit in these massacres. Millennials and Gen-Z are the most highly medicated people in history and mass shootings became much more common as millennials entered adolescence. As an aside, it plays a big role in veteran suicides as well since the VA gives out SSRIs like candy without knowing a patient’s history.