Senate Gun Control

And yet, from the context (especially when you look at the notes from the debates over the Amendment I linked to) it's clear which definition they meant. Again, look at the previous drafts and proposals:

James Madison: "a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country"
Virginia: "that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State."
New York: "that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State"
House Committee Report: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State"
House Resolution as passed: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State"
Senate version: "A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state"
Final version: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Through all of those, only the definition relating to troops ("Properly disciplined") fits. There is really no way that you can honestly look at the historical record and claim that the Second Amendment was drafted to give the government the authority to control access to arms. It was, at every turn of the discussion, designed to be a limitation on the government only.

 

Not true.

There is a way that you can honestly look at the historical record, the etymology of the words, their common usage and meaning at the time (which seems identical to contemporary usage) and see that a chaotic distribution of arms among untrained, unknown individuals is nothing resembling 'regulated' in either the sense of uniformity, or periodic frequency, or well disciplined fighting men, or a well ordered machine.

But I thought you argued that it was for the defence of the nation, it can't effectively be both.

 

Not true. There is a difference between the nation and the government, and that was something that the Founders understood very clearly. In fact, that was in large part the basis for the entire revolution.

In the US, the people are sovereign, not the government. This was a radical departure from virtually every other nation on Earth up to that point. The Declaration of Independence made that principle abundantly clear, and the structure of the Constitution continued that philosophical principle. That is why officers of the United States, as well as all members of the military, take an oath not to an individual (as is done in monarchies, where the king or queen is sovereign), but to uphold and defend the Constitution, the collective statement from the people who are the ultimate sovereign.

As a result, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to restrict the government from using the powers delegated to it by the sovereign (the people) to infringe the rights of the sovereign (the people). At the same time, the government was given a limited amount of power to call out a subset of the people (the militia) and direct them only while they are in service to the government. The criteria for calling them up for duty was given very explicitly: "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions". That's it.

This was the legal basis for officers of the United States to call upon citizens to assist in enforcing the laws (creating a posse). It's also the basis for calling forth citizens to aid in the nation's defense (as in the War of 1812) or to suppress a rebellion (the Civil War). But beyond such circumstances, that authority ends. It's not a general grant of authority over all things related to arms. It is a direct restriction of that authority.

The militia is the most fundamental defense of the nation. It can be called up by the government to defend the nation, but it can also rise up against the government to defend the nation. Why? Because the nation is the people, not the government.

 

Arguably one of the biggest mistakes of the last 500 years.

 

It is what it is.

Besides, would you prefer we make some individual (and his/her descendants) sovereign? That doesn't exactly have a sterling track record either.

 

Not at all.

If you read the actual text of Article I Section 2, it never claimed that slaves were 3/5 of a person. In fact, it explicitly referred to them as "persons". From the text:

Free blacks were always fully counted for purposes of representation. Moreover, since you are by law a "free person", and both slavery and involuntary servitude were outlawed by the 13th Amendment, you would still fall under the original definition of a free person as defined in Article I Section 2. Of course, that specific section has since been superseded by the 14th Amendment, which states (in relevant part):

If you are trying to use that as an argument against originalism, you fail on pretty much every count. An originalist interpretation deals with the document as it has been amended. Since that section was amended through both the 13th and 14th Amendments, any originalist interpretation has to take those amendments into account.

 

America is a lost cause.

 

Okay, so what if I argued that gun rights are no longer necessary for the defense of the nation? We no longer have a vast frontier where isolated people might need to defend themselves against marauding bandits or Indians. We have 911 operators and police cars that allow police to respond to burglaries within minutes. Nowadays, guns are more a recipe for disaster than they are a viable tool of defense. Guns are also not very useful for rising up against the government--look at how well the Iraqi insurgents fared against well-trained U.S. troops, or the Tamil Tigers against the Sri Lankan government. Then contrast how the Egyptians managed to overthrow Mubarak without resort to violence, because a broad swath of the population was in agreement that Mubarak had to go, and the military stepped aside and let it happen.

 

I think I see a problem, KK is mixing up sovereignty (the independent authority for a state to govern itself) and a sovereign (a monarch) and head of state. So if we mention any one of these, KK thinks he has to whine on about one or all of the others.

It's quite cunning, or dumb. I can't decide.

 

If you really think that privately-owned guns are no longer necessary, then amend the Constitution to reflect that. While you are at it, be sure to get rid of some other things, like the requirement for warrants and probable case, because that's what it would take to round up the existing 300 million or so guns already out there in the US. At some point, gun control advocates have to recognize that you cannot put that genie back in the bottle. It's been out of the bottle since before this nation was born.

However, I will point out that 911 operators and police cars might respond to burglaries, but they are purely reactive. For the most part they only investigate a crime after it happens. They almost never are able to address the crime while it is actually in progress.

And a recipe for disaster? Studies have shown that there are between about 100,000 and 4.7 million defensive gun uses every year. (The latter number comes from this survey from 1994.) Most experts agree that the number is likely in excess of 1 million. Contrast that with the number of gun crimes out there, and you can see that guns are used at least as often for defense as they are for crime, if not more often for defense. (That same 1994 survey found that there were only 1.07 million crimes in 1994 involving firearms.) Even the most gun control-friendly studies have failed to show a clear causative link between strict gun control and reduced crime. At best, it appears that gun control has no statistically significant effect on crime rates. At worst, it leads to higher crime.

No, I am specifically speaking about the sovereign (of which a monarch is only one type). In political terms, the sovereign is the entity from which the government draws its power or authority. In monarchies, that individual is the monarch (who traditionally gained such authority through the divine right of kings). In the United States, the people as a whole are sovereign. The government derives it authority from the consent of those governed. As such, the government only has authority over those things that the people have actually granted authority over. In the case of the Constitution, the Second Amendment specifically excludes infringing the right to keep and bear arms from being within that authority.

 

http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423

 

Good thing I'm not going to Texas anytime soon. Like, maybe never.

 

Why, are you an escort?

 

No, but I rather not go to a state where somebody can decide to shoot me willy-nilly and get away with it.

 

Why, are you an escort?

 

It may not be willy and or nilly; in parts of the world, spamming threads with Dr Who soundtracks and Nickelback would get you shot.

 

Well, it's Nickelback.

 

See what wasn't the truth... classic.

That's gotta be the best Freudian slip I've heard in years.

That guy should run for office.

 

http://wgrd.com/company-markets-sho...uring-virginia-tech-victim-in-the-background/

Mr44

 

No, No, NO!

Did this company learn nothing from Sarah Palin's 'targeting' of Democrats with gun sites during 2010? A list that Gabby Giffords herself was on?

 

Please stop with that old canard. There has not been one shred of evidence to connect the Palin targeting graphic with Jared Laughtner's decision to target her in Tucson, and there's quite a bit of evidence to indicate that it had nothing to do with the shooting.

 

It doesn't really matter whether or not Loughner looked at the graphic and said, "Well, guess I have to shoot her cause Sarah Palin said so." I don't think anyone seriously believes that that is actually what happened.