gun control - what are we waiting for ?

[HeyYou]

Those who are willing to give up their freedom for security, will have neither.

 

And the writings of the various founding fathers have been interpreted in a multitude of ways. I do believe that 'defending ourselves from an authoritarian government' entered into the argument for the 2nd amendment as well.

 

Please take note what happened in almost every country that banned civilian ownership of firearms. Millions dead, at the hands of their own government.

[DanteRedfield]

That's a good break down of the first half croc but how would you dismiss the important ending half called "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Deleted92948618User]

Well, said once again Salty. Americans though love that word "freedom".

 

People sometimes forget that America, as a nation, isn't really all that old in the context of 'civilisations", with a vastly disparate ethnic and cultural make up (even in it's infancy) I believe that's why it's sometimes referred to as "the great experiment", taking what, at the time, were considered some of the best social and political ideals and creating a new country governed by them.

 

It's worked pretty darn well, all things considered, but it's far from perfect - no country can even come close to making that claim - My question is one that is often inferred, but rarely spoken = Where does one draw the line between "freedom" and "Security"?

 

The peace vs freedom conundrum. I can't answer that, because the choice of what one will accept in the name of security is a personal one. So any answer is fraught with the arguments one normally hears about where freedom ends and security begins.

[Deleted92948618User]

That's a good break down of the first half croc but how would you dismiss the important ending half called "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

First, I do not dismiss any part of America's Constitution. That is up to Americans.

 

So, let's be clear, the Second Amendment reads: 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.

 

The first clause was supposed to be a limiter, the second a clarifying explanation, and the last two clauses, the statement of rights and governmental restriction. Unfortunately, the American Supreme Court did exactly what some believe should have been done my the original authors. They neutered the first two clauses and divorced them from the latter two. That court decision was upheld as late as 2008 by the American Supreme Court in the District of Columbia vs Heller.

 

So the American Supreme Court has basically rewritten the Second Amendment to read: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

And Americans decry the Justice System writing law. Pfff.

[DanteRedfield]

I don't believe it's a rewriting at all, the first half only explains why the people should have a right to be armed because they would be unable to form a militia without weapons, unless they're planning to form a social workers militia

[Deleted92948618User]

I don't believe it's a rewriting at all, the first half only explains why the people should have a right to be armed because they would be unable to form a militia without weapons, unless they're planning to form a social workers militia

 

As I explained earlier, the "well regulated militia" was written as the superior or most important clause in the Amendment. What the American Supreme Court did was to eliminate the "well regulated" portion of the Amendment, which is the very definition of Judicial Activism.

 

And I will leave that there.

[DanteRedfield]

It's not stated whom it's to be regulated by, the government or the militia itself which could mean either as they had just overthrown their english government with their own people

[Deleted92948618User]

It's not stated whom it's to be regulated by, the government or the militia itself which could mean either as they had just overthrown their english government with their own people

 

Before the American Revolutionary War, colonies or cities or communities established local militia groups to defend their communities from "marauding savages and foreign invasion". In several colonies, it was required by law that all "able bodied men,16 to 60" join the local militia. The Massachusetts Provincial Congress determined that a larger and more effective reaction force was needed in the face of the British buildup prior to the outbreak of hostilities in the Revolutionary War, and expanded the role of several local militia groups and founded the Minutemen. So early on, even before the Revolutionary War, militia groups were under the control and regulation of a central government body.

 

So who is to be "well regulated" and who was to do the "regulating" were clearly understood, and in some cases defined in law, well before the Constitution was written and well before the First Ten Amendments were ratified.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Guest

[DanteRedfield]

That may be how the minutemen were formed but I still don't see why they would have outside regulation of arms

[Perraine]

That's where the freedom vs security conundrum comes into it. People had the "freedom" to dispense justice (or security) however they saw fit, the problem being, who decides what is justice? That path leads to anarchy. So, when joining communities or towns/cities you voluntarily give up the "freedom" to own and/or bare arms and allow an appointed person or persons to be the arbiters of justice, as codified by local, state or federal law.

 

In Australia for instance, in the early days of the colony most men owned a long gun/s of some description, ostensibly for protection against wildlife, but due to the VAST expanses of the country and it's sparse population, those men where often called upon or "deputised" by the single nearest "constable" when some malcontent needed apprehending.

 

I believe this may have also been the intent in America, in regards to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, except the "culture" was already quite different in America, (it was founded after all by people who essentially were saying FU to the olde authority and "we'll make our own country, with beer and hookers" ) and the population was much, much larger, so you ended up with far too many "deputies" or people who believed they deserved to be deputies or had the "right" to be deputies, dispensing their own version of "justice".