|
Jailbird420
Old Man



Registered: 02/20/19
Posts: 297
Last seen: 10 days, 21 hours
|
Taking a new look at the 2nd
#27300440 - 05/08/21 04:52 PM (3 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Everyone seems to have this odd idea of what the 2nd Amendment is for. This was done on purpose by weapons manufacturers and given a voice through the NRA.
Quote:
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.
This one sentence is talking about the citizens' right to form a well-regulated Militia. It was designed for the citizens to form a militia to protect the state from invaders.
Since we had no standing army at the time, everyone was expected to participate in the militia.
Well, fast-forward 200 years and we have a standing National Militia, a State Militia, and local militia in the form of police. You are free to join those if you have the need/desire to play with the big guns.
If you’re not a part of a well-regulated militia, you have no need for any kind of semi-automatic weapon.
Keep all the muskets and muzzleloaders your feeble little frame can carry for all I care.
You do not have a need for a semi-automatic weapon.
As it stands now you can lose your right to arm yourself if the state so chooses. That proves that, as things are now, gun ownership is a privilege.
Our laws around weapons need a MAJOR overhaul.
Here is my proposal that doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment in any way:
All citizens can own, with little to no training; bows and cross-bows, muzzleloaders, single-shot shotguns, single-shot bolt-action rifles up to a caliber of ~.306 (the size of this caliber can be debated). The ability to own these weapons cannot be infringed unless you are convicted of a violent criminal offense. (as it stands now anyone convicted of any felony loses their gun rights)
All other weapons (especially semi-automatic ones) should be heavily regulated, and only those well trained to use them should be able to get the needed license to own them. Most people in an active militia can own most of these semi-automatic weapons, but once they are no longer in service they must turn their weapons in.
There are simple, common-sense ways to address our gun laws in the U.S. and still honor the 2nd Amendment.
. . . . . .
Prepares for the shit-storm from the Gun nuts about My FreeDumbs

|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,490
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Jailbird420]
#27300451 - 05/08/21 05:00 PM (3 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
This isn't new. There are many threads just like this. Use the search engine, find one and contribute to it.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: ballsalsa]
#27300894 - 05/08/21 10:35 PM (3 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|

Also, everything you've said flies in the face of stare decisis.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Tight Lunchbox
Drunk cat


Registered: 11/06/16
Posts: 2,117
Last seen: 1 month, 26 days
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Jailbird420]
#27330597 - 05/31/21 05:23 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Damn, bro, what great talking points. I have never before laid eyes upon a thread such as this.
-------------------- "it's all a joke between mom contractions and coffin fittings" The most useful tool for noobs
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,643
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Jailbird420] 2
#27330950 - 06/01/21 01:05 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This reads like the Dutch firecracker & bottle rocket ban.
Don't take away our toys
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 14 minutes, 52 seconds
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Asante]
#27331228 - 06/01/21 08:56 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Bows and crossbows are not firearms, and not covered by the second amendment. Same with knives and swords, though Scalia seemed to be pushing the idea that the second amendment should apply to swords before he started pushing daisies.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Kryptos] 1
#27331259 - 06/01/21 09:35 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What makes you think that bows, crossbows, knives and swords are not covered by the second amendment?
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
griffenstryker
Mycologist Beginner



Registered: 03/27/21
Posts: 15
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Kryptos]
#27331301 - 06/01/21 10:39 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Bows, Crossbows, knives and swords meet the definition of arms - They just don't meet the definition of firearms. The second amendment suggests a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms, not firearms. They're all covered by the 2nd Amendment. See District of Columbia V Heller.
Edited by griffenstryker (06/01/21 10:44 AM)
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 14 minutes, 52 seconds
|
|
DC v Heller, actually.
It specifically limits the second amendment to firearms, though Scalia mentions the possibility that the second amendment should apply to knives and swords, but declines to make the judgement in DC v Heller.
Edit: This is why in most places in the US, it's illegal to carry a sword openly, but perfectly alright to carry a gun.
Edited by Kryptos (06/01/21 03:14 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Kryptos] 1
#27332249 - 06/02/21 06:59 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What makes you think that that Heller limits the 2nd amendment to firearms?
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 14 minutes, 52 seconds
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Enlil]
#27332472 - 06/02/21 10:21 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Mostly because it didn't lead to knife/sword bans being declared unconstitutional, and the decision was tailored to firearms.
However, at several points in the decision Scalia did float the idea that the second amendment should apply to knives and swords as well, and was clearly pushing it that direction. Then he died.
Personally, I don't think that knives and swords will ever be legalized under the second amendment, because they aren't nearly as profitable. When you ell someone a gun, they'll be back to buy bullets regularly. It's like a subscription service. If you sell someone a knife, that's it. There isn't a way to monetize knife ownership.
EDIT: Wooden v US, 2010, basically confirms this. You do not have a second amendment right to carry a knife in self defense. Only a gun.
Edited by Kryptos (06/02/21 10:28 AM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Kryptos] 1
#27332717 - 06/02/21 01:42 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That's not a great analysis, bro. Heller wasn't about a knife, so it didn't make any findings about whether knives are protected by the 2nd. Wooden doesn't either. It just says that Heller doesn't apply to knives. It's also not the law anywhere but DC.
You claiming that there is no 2nd amendment right to carry a knife in self defense is based on nothing but an absence of contrary authority.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 14 minutes, 52 seconds
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Enlil]
#27332819 - 06/02/21 03:37 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: You claiming that there is no 2nd amendment right to carry a knife in self defense is based on nothing but an absence of contrary authority.
Well, yeah. That and the whole laws against carrying knives that have never been successfully challenged on second amendment grounds. As I am not eager to become a 2nd amendment martyr for knives, which nobody cares about because there isn't a market incentive to allow knives under the second amendment, it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that second amendment only covers guns.
Though I think there is something to be said that Scalia brought up knives in the Heller opinion, but didn't really go past that.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the actual decision for Wooden v US, but I did find this:
Quote:
The D.C. Court of Appeals rejected this argument because: 1) it is not clear that knives are covered by Heller; and 2) even if they were, it is even less clear that Heller allows arms to be carried about in anticipation of a need to defend one’s self outside the home.
Edited by Kryptos (06/02/21 03:45 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Kryptos]
#27333035 - 06/02/21 06:52 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: That and the whole laws against carrying knives that have never been successfully challenged on second amendment grounds.
While that may be true (and I don't know that it is), it's clear that many cases have upheld knife regulations based on 2nd amendment analysis.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Patlal
You ask too many questions


Registered: 10/09/10
Posts: 44,849
Loc: Ottawa
Last seen: 49 minutes, 32 seconds
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Enlil]
#27333066 - 06/02/21 07:36 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The 28th should be:
Guns for regular people was a mistake to begin with. Because of the thousands of people who used them for murder every year, they should not be allowed to the general population (Insert gun fact nut fiction here).
Too stupid should be a measurable criteria but it can't be accessed. That only leads to everybody can have a gun.
Most people are stupid... Therefore they can own guns.
Stupid people packing heat. Is that what you want?
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 14 minutes, 52 seconds
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Enlil]
#27333075 - 06/02/21 07:48 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Kryptos said: That and the whole laws against carrying knives that have never been successfully challenged on second amendment grounds.
While that may be true (and I don't know that it is), it's clear that many cases have upheld knife regulations based on 2nd amendment analysis.
...So, many cases have upheld infringement upon the right to bear knives, based on the second amendment? Therefore, knives are not protected by the second amendment?
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Kryptos] 1
#27333097 - 06/02/21 08:06 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Wrong. Therefore knives are protected by the 2nd amendment. Those laws just happened to pass the level of scrutiny at the time. Every right can be infringed if the infringing law passes the proper level of scrutiny. That doesn't suddenly mean it's not a right.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 14 minutes, 52 seconds
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Enlil]
#27333130 - 06/02/21 08:45 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That kinda seems like the absence of contrary authority you brought up earlier...
Unless of course your argument is that everything is a right, with various levels of infringement depending on applicable law. Which is a bit like saying everything is white, but with varying levels of color added. You'd be diluting the definition of "right" to the point of homeopathy.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,515
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Kryptos]
#27333136 - 06/02/21 08:49 PM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well, if you really want me to explain it, here goes:
If there is no constitutional right at play, the government can make any law it wants as long as there's a rational basis for the law. If, however, there is a constitutional right, the test is higher. There are different levels of tests, or "scrutiny," but any constitutional right will trigger some level higher than rational basis.
If the 2nd didn't apply to knives, laws would not need to meet any scrutiny. Because laws concerning knives are typically held to intermediate scrutiny or higher, that means there's a constitutional right involved.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 22,490
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Taking a new look at the 2nd [Re: Enlil]
#27333640 - 06/03/21 08:54 AM (2 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
We had a good discussion on this once in the GMO labeling thread
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
|