guns

[odeon]

My question to each of these occurrences was and will be:

What "well regulated militia" did these killers belong to?

+

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Can you take 11 dead seriously? Or is it a moot point for you when the author says something you disagree with?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[Yuri Bezmenov]

My question to each of these occurrences was and will be:

What "well regulated militia" did these killers belong to?

The 2nd Amendment contains 2 clauses, one to protect the right of the People (that is, the same people in the 1st amendment, the general population as determined by case law) and the use of this right to supplement state militias.

There hasn't been a need to use the first clause since WWII, when it was deemed useful in case of Japanese invasion of the west coast.

[Calandale]

No. The clauses run together. There were municipalities which
drastically limited firearms. Yet, the musket was a vital tool
in most of the country.

The general right is definitely grounded in fear of federal restrictions -
but someone stockpiling military-only weaponry (like cannon) would
have been an issue at the local level, almost anywhere. Likely so would
assembling large caches. Rather, any local militia would perhaps be wielded
in opposition to federal overreach.

The population density of many regions of the country today rivals that of
large towns in the 18th century. Yet, if anything, local control of weaponry
(including drilling the militia) has largely disappeared outside of the largest
cities. Open carry, often flat-out illegal in even frontier towns, has become a
rallying cry for a culture that no longer sees guns as tools so much as some sort
of symbol.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

No. The clauses run together.

Uum, no. The following court cases have established that the clauses are separate.

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments. In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."

Open carry, often flat-out illegal in even frontier towns, has become a
rallying cry for a culture that no longer sees guns as tools so much as some sort
of symbol.

Open carry is perfectly legal in the majority of the state of Orygun, there's several videos that have been done about this.

[odeon]

Can you take 11 dead seriously? Or is it a moot point for you when the author says something you disagree with?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Anything but your precious guns.

[odeon]

No. The clauses run together.

Uum, no. The following court cases have established that the clauses are separate.

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. This was the first time the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments. In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare."

Open carry, often flat-out illegal in even frontier towns, has become a
rallying cry for a culture that no longer sees guns as tools so much as some sort
of symbol.

Open carry is perfectly legal in the majority of the state of Orygun, there's several videos that have been done about this.

It's hilarious but also very sad how your arguments focus on an 18th century wording intended for a very different world rather than admitting that sticking to that wording has failed miserably. People sometimes wonder how many more must die before you catch up with the civilised world but I'm actually wondering if you ever will.

[Calandale]

Uum, no. The following court cases have established that the clauses are separate.

I'm sorry. I forgot that the courts redefine reality, and not just the law.

It's really odd how the interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed - led by
supposed strict constructionists.

[Jack]

Uum, no. The following court cases have established that the clauses are separate.

I'm sorry. I forgot that the courts redefine reality, and not just the law.

It's really odd how the interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed - led by
supposed strict constructionists.

The reality is, it's simply too vague. It will always mean whatever the supreme court says it means, so it will always have the potential to change.

[Calandale]

The reality is, it's simply too vague. It will always mean whatever the supreme court says it means, so it will always have the potential to change.

My belief is that that was intentional. That there was enough disagreement, even then, that
it couldn't be hammered out properly.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Can you take 11 dead seriously? Or is it a moot point for you when the author says something you disagree with?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Anything but your precious guns.

It's official, odeot is an NPC.   

[odeon]

Can you take 11 dead seriously? Or is it a moot point for you when the author says something you disagree with?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Anything but your precious guns.

It's official, odeot is an NPC.   

Is this #1 again? Your dishonesty is staggering today. What did you do? Stream Trump's latest hate speech? Masturbate to KKK pamphlets?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

The reality is, it's simply too vague. It will always mean whatever the supreme court says it means, so it will always have the potential to change.

My belief is that that was intentional. That there was enough disagreement, even then, that
it couldn't be hammered out properly.

I strongly suspect that you are correct Cal.

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably. I find it difficult to believe that men of such intelligence and education would have been so incompetent when it came to putting together a simple sentence.

On the other hand if the intention was to come up with a sentence whose precise intended meaning was pretty much impossible to nail down, then they did a remarkably fine job.

In my case, I'm pretty happy about living in a country with sensible gun laws. I don't need an arsenal of weapons in my house, or any weapons at all really, and I feel a lot safer that way. I get that Americans love their freedom to own whatever type of gun they like and as many guns and as much ammo as they like and to swagger around with their guns sticking out as much as they like. And I really can't see that changing. But I don't live there so it isn't my problem.

[Calandale]

We had some mighty strong anti-federal feelings in that (and every?) era.

[Jack]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.