Gun Rights

[Creekwood]

I actually wasn't trying to imply anything about constitutional histories, more to try and cite a national principle so imbedded in the fabric of the nation that it has become immutable. The Bill of Rights is like that in the US. We're going to need to continue to rely on evolutionary legislation and judicial review, which take time but in my opinion have served us well over the years despite hand-wringing over both. The process and dynamics of both will tend to dampen the chance of a sudden "tide shift" inflicting radical changes in either direction.

OK I get your point, but the monarchy is not a good comparison. I am not sure there is a good Canadian one. Maybe the 10 commandments. In many ways the US is unique in having a constitution that is strongly adhered to in absolute terms and referenced in

That second amendment is, like the rest of the constitution, embedded in the fabric of the nation. That is a fact. But the nation, technology, and the world change. 200 plus year old wording at some point becomes more difficult to interpret as to how to apply to today. When it was written you had two styles of guns to choose from --> a single shot flint lock musket or pistol. The vast majority of America lived in rural areas. A mentally ill person was not out in society, they were put in asylums. Automatic militarily deadly and accurate weapons were not available, let alone in Walmart. You could not download gun plans from the internet and 3D print them in your room. They had just won the American Revolution and there was real concern that a foreign government might seek to take over the nation again. (I get that many in the US believe that is enough reason for everyone to have military grade weapons). Today you have to sort out how to apply 2A to a very much more complex world. Its outdated, simplistic and incomplete. That means its open to interpretation. That is why it is under challenge.

 

[firecadet613]

My guns haven't shot anyone and I'm betting no one on CSR has. The guns not the problem. Years ago, you could order guns by mail. Mass shootings are a more recent phenomenon and until the root cause of that is addressed, I fear they will continue.

Ever notice, mass shootings happen in "gun free zones," where the law abiding citizen is disarmed? I wonder why that is....

 

[OllieC]

Would you use that same logic for the 1st Amendment. There were basically only two forms of communication as well - word of mouth and newspapers. There was no telegraph, there were no phones, no radios, no television, no satellite communications, no 24/7 news cycles, no internet and no social media platforms?

Automatic rifles are currently not available to the average Joe either. You just can’t go to Walmart and purchase one. They’re illegal. An M1A1 carbine from WW2 is pretty accurate. It’s already illegal to possess a firearm if you are a felon.

The shooter in FL was red flagged, and nothing was done. With the Sandy Hook tragedy, none of the proposed laws against law abiding firearm owners would have prevented that. He was under 21, mentally unstable, and obtained his firearms without going to Walmart and purchasing them.

As I asked before, tell us what is outdated about the 2nd other than some old white guys 200 years ago created an incomplete document?? FYI, the Amendment order in the Bill of Rights was not drawn out of a hat. There’s a reason for the order.

 

[Creekwood]

Of course politicians wouldn’t want the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. It limits their power on what they can do to us.....and no, not “all” states politicians are like Northam. But I get it, those words were written by a bunch of old white guys :roll eyes:

Please tell me what you think in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is unclear and outdated. Is it the 1st Amendment? It’s clear you think the 2nd is - not sure how “shall not be infringed” can misinterpreted tho.... How about the 4th? How about the 13th - Democrat’s really hated that one. As a matter of fact, that evil NRA lobby, they used to help freed slaves protect themselves from Democrats. How about the preamble to our Constitution? How should those words be changed? Any other portion of my Rights do you think are old, outdated and unclear?

I am not in any way saying the whole constitution should be changed. I will note that there are 33 "amendments" to the constitution. At each stage of its development, if your founding fathers and congress since, had entrenched and said that the constitution cannot be changed, its perfect, there would be no amendments. And that means no second amendment. The second amendment was passed in 1791. Although to be fair, that was part of 1A to 10A, which were started right after the original was signed, so they were works in progress even in 1776. So 11 to 33 were passed in order to deal with matters where the original constitution did not adequately address situations or issues.

I know you think 2A is clear and not outdated. Many of your fellow Americans don't agree.

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.

What is "a well regulated Militia"? What does "well regulated" mean". Who, under the constitution is therefore permitted to regulate the Militia? It seems to me that 2A means that the government has full and complete determin how to regulate the way people keep and bear arms? I don't need to go over all the areas that are being interpreted. You know what they are, even if you disagree.

If the majority of other American's shift their view and continue to make laws and support politicians that also think it is not as clear as you do, it will be interpreted in a way that is not what you think it means.

In my view an updated more clear constitutional gun rights/law amendment, embedded in the Constitution, can cement gun rights in a truly clear way. I think it should be done now or very soon. If gun lobbies wait until the tide has swung far left, it is MUCH more likely that the change will not be what you want. Or you can gamble that the tide will swing far right.

 

[OllieC]

I get your position on the 2nd and I disagree. It is what it is. I enjoy the spirited debate. Maybe, in the future, God help us, the 2nd will be amended. Hopefully I’ll be long gone.

Without trying to drag this into another debate, however the reason I tied the 1st into the 2nd is because we are already seeing the Left in this country trying to destroy the 1st. It’s a slippery slope. What happened to Liberty?? Our Fed Government is there to protect our Liberties and Bill of Rights, not discourage it and remove them. Especially removing them when a particular political party is in power via the state or federal. It doesn’t work that way. That’s the tyranny I mentioned earlier.

 

[Woody]

In many ways the US is unique in having a constitution that is strongly adhered to in absolute terms and referenced in

That second amendment is, like the rest of the constitution, embedded in the fabric of the nation.

I think you're starting to 'get it'

 

[RBB]

The constitution and bill of rights dosen’t
Need rewritten. However rereading them
Maybe a good idea.

 

[JustRight]

My guns haven't shot anyone and I'm betting no one on CSR has. The guns not the problem. Years ago, you could order guns by mail. Mass shootings are a more recent phenomenon and until the root cause of that is addressed, I fear they will continue.

Ever notice, mass shootings happen in "gun free zones," where the law abiding citizen is disarmed? I wonder why that is....

This is quite an interesting thread. As with some others on this site, I am a retired police officer. I worked for 26 years for the New York State Police. I worked patrol as a Trooper, I was a supervisor, I worked as a Lieutenant in Internal Affairs, and I completed my career as a Captain (a Zone Commander responsible for police operations in a two-County geographical area). After retiring I worked for as a consultant specifically addressing Civilian responses to Active Shooter situations. The company I worked for utilized the DHS “Run, Hide, Fight” response model. I’m well versed in this issue.
I am a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment and a personal, individual right to keep and bear arms. I retired prior to NY State’s adoption of the “Safe Act”, which I believe contained unconstitutional restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights. With respect to “gun free zones”, I recall when they were enacted and the hope they would make protected “gun free zones” safer, as violating the gun free zone statutes would trigger enhanced criminal consequences, thus providing a deterrence. However, over time it has been become apparent that the establishment of “gun free zones” has resulted in predictable unintended consequences - gun free zones have clearly been exploited by murderers intent on inflicting maximum casualties. Active Shooter situations are essentially combat situations; stopping the Active Shooter usually requires someone with a gun to intervene. I do not support gun free zones because they are a failure. I also don’t have the answers to why we are in this mess; I believe mental health issues are part of the problem, so is a general breakdown in general civility in our society (just because you have a right to say something, doesn’t necessarily mean you should say it). I’m sure there are many other factors as well. I’ve already ranted plenty, and thank anyone that has read this far. This topic touches a nerve, because I love this country and I hold out hope that we can face any problem head-on and fix it.
Tim

 

[lawndoctor]

I am not in any way saying the whole constitution should be changed. I will note that there are 33 "amendments" to the constitution. At each stage of its development, if your founding fathers and congress since, had entrenched and said that the constitution cannot be changed, its perfect, there would be no amendments. And that means no second amendment. The second amendment was passed in 1791. Although to be fair, that was part of 1A to 10A, which were started right after the original was signed, so they were works in progress even in 1776. So 11 to 33 were passed in order to deal with matters where the original constitution did not adequately address situations or issues.

I know you think 2A is clear and not outdated. Many of your fellow Americans don't agree.

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.

What is "a well regulated Militia"? What does "well regulated" mean". Who, under the constitution is therefore permitted to regulate the Militia? It seems to me that 2A means that the government has full and complete determin how to regulate the way people keep and bear arms? I don't need to go over all the areas that are being interpreted. You know what they are, even if you disagree.

If the majority of other American's shift their view and continue to make laws and support politicians that also think it is not as clear as you do, it will be interpreted in a way that is not what you think it means.

In my view an updated more clear constitutional gun rights/law amendment, embedded in the Constitution, can cement gun rights in a truly clear way. I think it should be done now or very soon. If gun lobbies wait until the tide has swung far left, it is MUCH more likely that the change will not be what you want. Or you can gamble that the tide will swing far right.

The Supreme Court has aready ruled that the “well regulated militia” phrase does not limit the individual right to keep and bear arms, so the law of the land is settled on that point. Ultimately, it makes no difference what the majority of people favor at a particular moment in time, it only matters what the Constitution says, and the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it does, subject to the amendment process which is cumbersome to say the least. Given President Trump’s Supreme Court appointments so far, not to mention several more that will likely be coming if he gets re-elected, it doesn’t seem like there’s much chance of the Supreme Court reversing itself on that issue any time soon. So the questions you raise may be interesting, but they are pretty much settled and thus they are essentially academic. The question to be decided in the next case is how far the right to carry in public extends. And this is just the federal protection of the right. Many of the states have even stronger protections in their constitutions, Pennsylvania being a good example, so any laws restricting gun rights have to get past them too. Philadelphia has been trying to do that for years, and the city keeps getting smacked down, at significant taxpayer expense, by the state supreme court based on the state constitution.

 

[hynespa]

None of these non-federal organizations existed at the time of the adoption of the bill of rights, my personal belief is that they would all meet the modern definition of a “well regulated militia”:

* State National Guard
* State Police
* County Sheriff
* City Police
* Local Park Ranger
* Other volunteer/trained local law enforcement

Each of these organizations have some level of screening, training, ongoing evaluation and termination for cause. I believe all of these keep us safe and free. These “well regulated militias” are the first responders who come when we dial 911.

The constitution and bill of rights was written far prior to the advent of computers, word processors, copiers. Each word had to be painstakingly written out on parchment by a calligrapher in a process that took many hours if not days. I do not believe the framers wasted words and believe this part of the second amendment is every bit as important and meaningful as what comes after.