A veterans thoughts on gun control

[Nicholas Carey]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Well regulated militias don't have members who leave their guns lying around for the kids or who fire them off frequently in the front yard or go off to the local school or shopping mall for a shooting to let off steam.

"Well-regulated" in the context of the times, means "well-trained" and/or "well-disciplined", as in "Regulator Clock" or "regular soldiers" (as in "English regulars").

[RFNK]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Even so, does it change the obvious intent? The Swiss have a system whereby guns are held by many people who are trained in their responsible use and management, and are held so that the society can defend itself against external threats. But the US is nothing like that. Gun owners are not trained, anyone can buy just about any gun there and keep it and carry it just about anywhere they wish. Well regulated doesn't describe any aspect of US gun culture, regardless of any current or historical definition of the term.

[LeeG]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

"Well-regulated" in the context of the times, means "well-trained" and/or "well-disciplined", as in "Regulator Clock" or "regular soldiers" (as in "English regulars").

Right, so what is the context for a well regulated militia in the 21st century where there are more guns than people?

[WX]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Right, so what is the context for a well regulated militia in the 21st century where there are more guns than people?

It's the National Guard.

[John Smith]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

SCOTUS interprets the 2nd in light of changes in our society and advancements in new technology. Quoting the plain text of the 2nd without a clear understanding of the various decisions of SCOTUS leads us nowhere.

But thank you for failing to understand my point, making false assumptions, and carrying on in a moronic manner.

What the 2nd actually says has, sadly, become irrelevant. It doesn't matter that it does not say 'own' and it does not say 'gun'.

"Arms" includes a whole bunch of weaponry that did not exist and could not have been imagined when the constitution was written.

Does anyone on this forum believe there are no limits to the 'arms' one can own (keep)? Can one of these multi billionaires own nuclear missiles?

If one reads the constitution, including Art 1, Sec 8, where it references the militia, the second amendment becomes more clear.

What it says doesn't matter. How the courts have interpreted does matter.

We are required to have insurance on our cars; why not guns? Why should someone who gets shot NOT have help with medical bills or funeral expenses?

Why do we not require insurance to be bought when buying a gun? Or use a bullet tax to pay premiums?

The courts don't always get things right. How many here think the court's ruling on abortion is correct? We're learning recently how members of the high court take stuff they ought not take, but it kind shows they can be, and are, bought.

It's one thing to argue, or point out, that the constitution says what the courts say it says, but that's not always what it does say.

[John Smith]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

The Supreme Court's opinions matter only insofar as the court is trusted by the people. To quote President Andrew Jackson, "The Court has made it decision — let it now enforce it."



as far as that goes, a good argument can be made that if one was to look at actual original intent, the one class of weapons protected by the 2nd amendment would be those weapons that comprise an ordinary infantryman's normal kit.

Which see Sanford Levinson's paper in the Yale Law Review, "The Embarrasing Second Amendment": https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstre...=2&isAllowed=y

The essential argument is that in 18th century England, laws had a very common structure: an introductory bit establishing a rationale, followed by the actual bill: "Whereas X, we ordain Y". In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the rationale is "[Whereas] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", with the unwritten understanding (as good English freemen) that all able-bodied men are part of the militia, and are to supply their own arms (per the English Militia Act[s]), and are to attend regular muster for training.

It therefore follows that men need to be able to possess the arms necessary to fulfill their obligations as members of the militia.

Like the title of the paper puts it, "the embarrassing second amendment".

Art 1 says the government's responsibility was to arm and train that militia, and call it up to do those things that the National Guard, police, military do today.

[John Smith]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

Well regulated militias don't have members who leave their guns lying around for the kids or who fire them off frequently in the front yard or go off to the local school or shopping mall for a shooting to let off steam.

The well regulated militia today is our standing military/police/National Guard.

Truth is the 2nd is somewhat irrelevant. NOTHING in the constitution prevents private citizens from owning guns, and NOTHING in the constitution prevents the government from regulating the ownership of guns.

The 2nd had the limited scope of the militia, which was to be armed and trained by the government to do those things that today's police, military, etc. do.

[LeeG]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

It's the National Guard.

Seems pretty damn obvious.

[Sandlapper]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

What it says doesn't matter. How the courts have interpreted does matter.

This is the only statement made here that makes any sense in todays atmosphere. Whether right, wrong, wise, ignorant or something else, nothing is important unless its enforced by the courts.

[skuthorp]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

And it's obvious that the courts, as well as the legislatures have long been creatures of the arms industry and it's lobby groups.

[John of Phoenix]

Re: A veterans thoughts on gun control

I took a business law course many years ago. Of the many things covered, there were three things I have found to be as predictable as gravity.

No law is enforced as predictably as the law of gravity - jaywalking to murder.
You definitely have rights but you don't have them INdefinitely - Roe v Wade
The law is what the JUDGE says the law is - 2nd amendment

It's not a Justice system, it's a legal system. There is very little Justice.