There are no "Second Amendment solutions"

[Rebel5soul]

Why is the Left side of our polity so focused on Hitler?

A cautionary tale for their movement?

Because they are the anti-Hitler (Joseph Stalin). BTW, that's what Antifa's all about.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

*chuckle*

Spot on!

OUT DAMNED SPOT!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Scalia did a nice job of presenting the historical context of our cherished second amendment in his landmark majority opinion in the Heller case.

 

[Buffalogurl]

Any serious rational discussion of gun control in America has to begin with even the NRA and the GOA admitting that privately owned firearms are POLITICALLY USELESS. You will never use them to fight the state with any hope of success.

Legitimate private uses of firearms are:
1. Personal defense against criminals (not against LEOs).
2. Hunting.
3. Gun collecting as a hobby.
4. Target shooting as a sport/hobby.

And that's all. Insurrection is not on the list.

I gotta ask....are you just trying to start a fight of words? This gurl wants to know

 

[Buffalogurl]

In fact, the 2A is not even RELEVANT.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ."

But, it ISN'T. Militia in the 18th-Century sense -- a volunteer nonprofessional force, as distinct from a National Guard of part-time professional soldiers -- has played no role in any American conflict since the Spanish-American War. We really don't need it at all.

The 2A was intended to facilitate a militia-based defense system (the idea was, when war broke out and the militia was called up, every militiaman would bring his own musket from home) at a time when the FFs feared a large professional army because such might be used as an instrument of domestic rule, as it was in Europe.

But the few instances when the U.S. Army actually has been used as an instrument of domestic rule -- Reconstruction, enforcement of racial integration and civil rights -- have not been in any way regrettable. The FFs' fears were groundless.

There really is no good reason to have the 2A in the Constitution. There is no reason why keeping arms should be a constitutional right, set beyond the reach of ordinary legislative politics. None at all.

Your political God Chairman Mao.... publicly stated " political power grows out if the barrel of a gun".....

 

[Politruk]

Scalia did a nice job of presenting the historical context of our cherished second amendment in his landmark majority opinion in the Heller case.

Scalia wrote:
"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Which is both true and irrelevant. This was addressed in the OP.

 

[Politruk]

I gotta ask....are you just trying to start a fight of words? This gurl wants to know

Every PB thread is a fight of words.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

A

Scalia wrote:
"(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Which is both true and irrelevant. This was addressed in the OP.

Also from Heller, our individual right is not limited to carrying arms in a militia.

“From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” [Footnote 8] It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.[Footnote 9] These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.”

 

[Politruk]

In the 18th Century or now, any argument based on a "natural right" is bullshit.

There are no natural rights, because -- outside the laws of mathematics, physics and chemistry -- there are no natural laws.

 

[SevMax2]

In theory, I support the idea of a natural right to revolt, disagreeing as I do with Politruk on the notion of natural law. I am not a fan of legal positivism. It's a philosophical difference, that's all. My understanding of natural law is a bit more naturalistic and less theistic than someone believes firmly and clearly in a deity of some kind (I'm basically a godless atheist).

In practice, most of those on the right aren't as likely to use their weapons to defend liberty as to destroy it on behalf of their fearless Messiah/Fuhrer/Duce. It's a double-edged sword, but on balance, those who love freedom shouldn't neglect arming ourselves as a defense against those whose notion of "liberty" is dubious at best. It is interesting that the right largely started the whole gun control business that is now popular on the left, with such conservative public servants as then California Governor Ronald Reagan restricting the Second Amendment rights of Black Panthers, among others. Gun control largely began because conservatives back then dominated a lot of social institutions, the very ones that they now mistrust and oppose because they no longer control them to a large extent.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The subject line of this thread implies the need for a “solution” to 2A. In the US, constitutional questions are resolved through our judicial system. Decisions rendered by SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald cases have solved the major points of disagreement.

 

[SevMax2]

The subject line of this thread implies the need for a “solution” to 2A. In the US, constitutional questions are resolved through our judicial system. Decisions rendered by SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald cases have solved the major points of disagreement.

I don't often agree with you, but I do here. The Second Amendment isn't inherently a problem. Where we differ on whether something else is a problem....right-wing domestic terrorism.

 

[Politruk]

The subject line of this thread implies the need for a “solution” to 2A.

No, a solution USING the 2A. I am using the phrase "Second Amendment solutions" as RWs use it, to mean insurrection. (Or sometimes, they seem to imply, assassination.)

The FFs certainly never intended to encode any right to insurrection. The militia is conceived as an arm of the state, not as a countervailing popular force against the state. That is why the Constitution authorizes the president to command the militia.

 

[Bn2f]

Decisions rendered by SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald cases have solved the major points of disagreement.

Decisions rendered by SCOTUS in Roe v Wade have solved the major points of disagreement.
Ammosexuals across the land need not worry on a future court made up of common sense liberals revisiting and overturning adjudicated precedents.

 

[SevMax2]

No, a solution USING the 2A. I am using the phrase "Second Amendment solutions" as RWs use it, to mean insurrection. (Or sometimes, they seem to imply, assassination.)

The FFs certainly never intended to encode any right to insurrection. The militia is conceived as an arm of the state, not as a countervailing popular force against the state. That is why the Constitution authorizes the president to command the militia.

Yes and no. Generally, that is the thrust, but at some point in the Federalist Papers, there was the argument that if the central government by some chance, did happen to oppress and suppress the states and people, they could use the militia as a means to resist such breaches of the supreme law and the social contract. It was an argument based on a hypothetical scenario raised by Anti-Federalists to attack the proposed Constitution at the time.

That being said, its only application in a domestic insurrection was to quash it in both cases, in 1794 in the Whiskey Rebellion, under George Washington (who personally commanded his troops) and in 1861-1865 in the Civil War, under Abraham Lincoln, starting with his initial call for seventy-five thousand volunteers.

 

[Politruk]

Yes and no. Generally, that is the thrust, but at some point in the Federalist Papers, there was the argument that if the central government by some chance, did happen to oppress and suppress the states and people, they could use the militia as a means to resist such breaches of the supreme law and the social contract. It was an argument based on a hypothetical scenario raised by Anti-Federalists to attack the proposed Constitution at the time.

Of course, the Federalist Papers were not discussing the 2A, or anything in the Bill of Rights, which was not added until after the Constitution was ratified.

IIRC, Hamilton argued against a bill of rights.

 

[SevMax2]

Of course, the Federalist Papers were not discussing the 2A, or anything in the Bill of Rights, which was not added until after the Constitution was ratified.

IIRC, Hamilton argued against a bill of rights.

It was a common argument against a bill of rights that all of these rights already existed, without need for enumeration, and that if enumerated, it would someday be argued that they did not exist. It was for that reason that the Ninth Amendment was introduced, as a "catch-all" intended to protect any rights not so enumerated. In spite of this, people keep still denying the existence of any right not so enumerated, such as freedom of travel and the rights to privacy/bodily autonomy.

Yes, they were not discussing the Bill of Rights, which as you noted, didn't exist. In Federalist 46, however, the following argument was made by Publius, "Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

My essential point is this. The Framers, of course, did not wish to see their fragile new government shaken up or overthrown, of course, but they also understood from their own recent history how a government could become tyrannical, and they were not insensitive to such worries. They did not envision a near future or likely scenario for such things, certainly in their lifetimes, but the very fact that they incorporated such checks and balances, clearly indicated that the worry about tyranny wasn't too far buried in the backs of their minds. They knew that it could eventually come to that point, as Jefferson himself observed in the Declaration of Independence (again, not to be confused with the Constitution, but reflecting their general perspective), though most understandably didn't share Jefferson's own view that revolutions should be frequent.

 

[LostHorizon]

You didn't watch Red Dawn? The first one. All the others suck.

Wolverines!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

No, a solution USING the 2A. I am using the phrase "Second Amendment solutions" as RWs use it, to mean insurrection. (Or sometimes, they seem to imply, assassination.)

The FFs certainly never intended to encode any right to insurrection. The militia is conceived as an arm of the state, not as a countervailing popular force against the state. That is why the Constitution authorizes the president to command the militia.

Ok. I don’t know who’s claiming 2A provides a right to assassination or insurrection. That’s crazy.

 

[Politruk]

Wolverines!

I recall a scene where one Soviet soldier asks another, "What is a wolverine?"

"An animal, like a badger, but fierce. It is also the name of the local sports collective."

The writers did not do the research. No explanation would be necessary -- there are wolverines in Russia.

 

[Politruk]

Ok. I don’t know who’s claiming 2A provides a right to assassination or insurrection. That’s crazy.

Some do use the phrase "Second Amendment solutions," and they never use it to mean anything else. They're not talking about home defense.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Decisions rendered by SCOTUS in Roe v Wade have solved the major points of disagreement.
Ammosexuals across the land need not worry on a future court made up of common sense liberals revisiting and overturning adjudicated precedents.

I agree. Our 2A rights are protected. It’s certainly not something worth worrying about in our lifetimes.

 

[SevMax2]

Even so, the deliberate breach with the principle of stare decisis has long-term implications, and even on Second Amendment issues, the precedent should worry some folks, at least those like me who are both pro-gun and pro-choice.

 

[Politruk]

I agree. Our 2A rights are protected. It’s certainly not something worth worrying about in our lifetimes.

More importantly, if they were NOT protected, nobody would be any worse off.

Gun rights simply DO NOT MATTER. Nobody needs them. You might need the guns, depending on where you live, but you don't need the rights -- you have nothing to fear from leaving all gun-related questions to your legislature like any other ordinary public-safety issue.

 

[SevMax2]

Honestly, this is all becoming a moot point as 3D printing technology takes shape, after which any kind of enforcement is impossible.