• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How would you amend the second amendment?

Ranb said:
Your irony does not work here. With 167 federal prosecutions involving silencers in the United States from 1995 to 2005; 135 merely for illegal possession and only 8 requiring enhanced sentencing, there isn't a silencer problem requiring such draconian punishments.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Aren't they kinda assassin equipment though?
 
stokes234 said:
Aren't they kinda assassin equipment though?
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any murders in the US in which a silencer was used. Killers prefer a weapon they can throw away and silencers are expensive. I think of them as more of a safety device. Hollywood has given silencers a bad reputation that they do not deserve.
 
daredelvis said:
How many terrorism prosecutions have there been between 1995 and 2005? Terrorism should be reduced to a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

I do not know, do you? So were these terrorists just well meaning people who terrorized the IRS with their failure to pay a tax? Probably not.

Ranb
 
stokes234 said:
Aren't they kinda assassin equipment though?
Click to expand...

I do not know what the situation is in the UK when it comes to silencers, but I have read that they are readily available to any gun owner with few restrictions compared to the USA. Is there some sort of uproar over their use by assassins there? It would be news to me if they were.

Like any other loud machine, guns can benefit with the use of a muffler. When I was researching silencer crime in Washington State, I was only able to uncover ten crimes involving silencers. One was involved in a murder trial and one was registered and confiscated for illegal use. They are not kinda assassin equipment where I live.

What evidence were you able to uncover where you live? Thanks.

Ranb
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting the authority of States to regulate the ownership of firearms by members of any militia formally recognized or constituted by a State, or by citizens of a State qualified to serve in militia recognized or constituted by a State, unless the State enacts legislation consenting to the authority of Congress. For purpose of this amendment, "firearm" refers to any weapon that can be employed by a single person and that does not shoot projectiles of greater than 1-inch in diameter."
 
LSSBB said:
Actually, a good definition of "well regulated militia" is in order.
Click to expand...
Why? What do you think that would accomplish? That is separate from the right of the people to bear arms.
 
Tiktaalik said:
Exactly. And providing the word "militia" is defined, insert phrase "in the militia" after "people" if that's what they meant, or leave the entire first clause off if that's not what they meant.
Click to expand...
Where in the Constitution does "the people" not mean "the people"?
 
Just strike it out. Don't really get what purpose it serves anymore anyway.
 
Always interested me this. Why are people who are not part of a civil militia allowed to own a gun? Doesn't the wording of the amended presume that these arms are being kept for the purposes of a civil militia?
 
Skepticemea said:
Always interested me this. Why are people who are not part of a civil militia allowed to own a gun? Doesn't the wording of the amended presume that these arms are being kept for the purposes of a civil militia?
Click to expand...


  1. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
  2. the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Part 1 gives a reason why the amendment is a good idea. Part 2 establishes a right of the People. We don't currently need Part 1 for the security of our State, however that doesn't mean we won't need it in the future. In any event, the two are separate statements.
 
Newtons Bit said:
  1. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
  2. the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Part 1 gives a reason why the amendment is a good idea. Part 2 establishes a right of the People. We don't currently need Part 1 for the security of our State, however that doesn't mean we won't need it in the future. In any event, the two are separate statements.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I'd say the reasons for the right being conferred are implicit in the first part of the sentence, but to take your first point:

Why is it still a good idea given that the reason the FFs thought it was a good idea isn't realised?
 
Of course, at the time, the "People" meant the people who were qualified to belong to a militia. "People" didn't mean, for instance slaves, who had no right to bear arms, or women, or non-citizens (like immigrants or Indians). They certainly didn't mean children. They meant adult men, who were, not coincidentally, the same people who were might be called upon to serve in militia. At the time a militia was pretty much any lawfully armed force. So if the local sheriff asked a bunch of people to grab their guns and find an outlaw, they were a militia. If there was an Indian attack, and the townsfolk had to bear arms to defend themselves, they became a militia.

Nowadays, "person" includes women, children, and black people. "Militia" is generally thought of as the National Guard. Nobody really imagines that the local "Neighborhood Watch" is a "militia", but back in the 18th century, that's one of the things militia did.

This is one of the reasons the amendment is confusing. "People" and "militia" were more or less interchangeable, and now they aren't.
 
Skepticemea said:
Why is it still a good idea given that the reason the FFs thought it was a good idea isn't realised?
Click to expand...

Who is to say it isn't realized? Until the closing of the frontier at around the turn of the 20th century, the use of militia was pretty common. The question is, given that we don't really have a frontier anymore, and the security of a free State is pretty much dependent solely on the federal armed forces, the National Guard, State troopers, and local police departments, is the Second Amendment obsolete? It probably is. That said, I'd still want the States to have latitude on how to equip their own law enforcement officers without too much interference from the federal government. To that extent, I think the spirit of the Second Amendment still has value.
 
Skepticemea said:
Hmmm... I'd say the reasons for the right being conferred are implicit in the first part of the sentence, but to take your first point:

Why is it still a good idea given that the reason the FFs thought it was a good idea isn't realised?
Click to expand...

You're making an odd appeal to tradition.

The founders planned for the USA to be defended by militias, not standing armies. These militias would be far easier to raise if they possessed their own arms. Just because we are not currently using this military model does not mean the right is nullified, or even that the concept isn't realized (see Afghanistan, 1979-1989).

In any event, the stated reason is *a* reason. It certainly isn't the only one. The 2nd amendment is also odd in that this language was included, while none of the other amendments included language as to why the framers thought it was necessary.
 
Limit to weapons that people can show are effectively used by actual militias. So they can have all the AK-47s, sucide belts, ZU-23s and RPG-7s they like. Pistols not so much.
 
LSSBB said:
Separated by a comma?

Don't get me wrong. I am not defending gun control. I think a clearer meaning is in order, currently there is wiggle room.
Click to expand...
Been there, done that: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(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.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom