[AssinHT]

And by "arms" they meant a flintlock pistol or musket, certainly not 9mm glocks or semiautomatic assault rifles. Does the 2nd Amendment extend to cannons? Under originalism there's no way to know. According to Scalia, not to cannons, but, possibly, rocket launches. This is the sort of idiotic thinking you get when you don't respect the complexity of the Constitution as a living document and allow a $300 million dollar lobbying group control the public debate.

Great point.

The second amendment is one of the few areas where the forefathers seemed to restrict themselves to their own time frame.

[ClapekDodki]

Great point.

The second amendment is one of the few areas where the forefathers seemed to restrict themselves to their own time frame.

You're not far from the truth.

It's easy to be confident that abstract notions of rights and governance can apply into the distant future. It's not so easy to predict whether a late 18th century technology will still be needed in the 21st.

The war with the British was still fresh on the framers' minds, and even after the Treaty of Paris, America's fate and security was uncertain. The need to ensure protection from the tyranny of monarchists was justifiable then, but now... not so much.

Despite what the NRA has force-fed people like red_dog to believe, the 2nd Amendment is still a lost amendment, as dated and irrelevant in modern America as the 3rd Amendment's restriction of billeting soldiers.

[CruzIzabella]

Supreme court doesn't agree with you. That is all that matters.

I think some of you pansies should go to the range sometime. See how much of a blast it is to shoot big bullets.

[mobiphones]

It's not so easy to predict whether a late 18th century technology will still be needed in the 21st.

Now YOU are being insincere... or at least I would hope you are, because if you truly believe that the Founders would take a look around the 21st century and scrap that amendment, I think you may have a problem none of us here can fix.

The need to ensure protection from the tyranny of monarchists was justifiable then...

You MUST be joking. The bill of rights was written expressly to protect the people against their own newly formed government, which that government's creators were terribly afraid would grow to infringe on any right not expressly given to the people. Time has again and again proven them right.

Despite what the NRA has force-fed people like red_dog to believe, the 2nd Amendment is still a lost amendment, as dated and irrelevant in modern America as the 3rd Amendment's restriction of billeting soldiers.

Your delusion, which extends only as far as necessary to make personal attacks into a way of supporting your argument, is so gross, as to completely ignore the fact that the above is the essence of what the Founders were trying to prevent by writing a Constitution to begin with. It's YOUR opinion that the 2nd Amendment is not relevant today. Well, if you are an American, you are free to campaign for repealing it. But until then, anyone that infringes on the rights expressly granted in the Constitution, and granted with not a shadow of a doubt as to their interpretation, is truly committing treason.

By the same reasoning, there are plenty of well-intentioned people who would claim that other amendments are equally outdated... like the one about freedom of their persons, papers, and effects from search.

I leave you with a redacted quote...

It's easy to be confident that abstract notions of rights and governance can apply into the distant future.

[iH1wMOhE]

i wonder if the people who ordered the rifle got the telly !

[HedgeYourBets]

Now YOU are being insincere... or at least I would hope you are, because if you truly believe that the Founders would take a look around the 21st century and scrap that amendment, I think you may have a problem none of us here can fix.

You are being delusional if you think you can know with any degree of certainty what the founders would make of the 2nd Amendment in the 21st century. But judging on their tendency to be guided by reason and not base appeals to tradition and ancestor worship, I'd wager most of the founders would consider the benefits of individual gun ownership on the one hand and weigh them against the enormous social costs on the other, and come out against your interpretation of their amendment.

You MUST be joking. The bill of rights was written expressly to protect the people against their own newly formed government, which that government's creators were terribly afraid would grow to infringe on any right not expressly given to the people. Time has again and again proven them right.

If anyone had cause to take up arms against their government for infringing on their rights, African Americans in the 1950s did. But most civil rights leaders saw that violence was a dead end. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the American people from their government. It couldn't. Only the democratic process and the application of the rule of law can correct government abuse and infringement of civil rights. Does it always succeed? No, and when it does, it usually takes enormous time and struggle on the part of many, but in the long run it's more effective than the definition of justice put forth by Thrasymachus.

Frankly, the idea that a bunch of rednecks with shotguns and handguns could overthrow the US government backed by the American military is laughable. Countless individuals and militias have tried, and American history has proven you wrong time and time again. Moreover, the insurrectionist interpretation is not only historically inaccurate, it's ****ing bonkers. Inciting others to bear arms against the government because of infringements of our rights, real or imagined, that, Gnius, is treason.

It's YOUR opinion that the 2nd Amendment is not relevant today. Well, if you are an American, you are free to campaign for repealing it. But until then, anyone that infringes on the rights expressly granted in the Constitution, and granted with not a shadow of a doubt as to their interpretation, is truly committing treason.

It's not necessary to repeal it since it doesn't grant individuals the right to own firearms; to suggest otherwise is rank historical revisionism of the worst kind. Whether you care to admit it or not, Congress has broad authority to restrict the sale and ownership of firearms in any manner it deems necessary. Up until SCOTUS was hijacked by right-wing ideologues, this has been upheld in every supreme court ruling. You only buy into this right-wink crankery because it supports your own ideology, and, I must say, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment borders on fanaticism. It's a form of constitutional literalism that shares much in common with the mindset of religious fundamentalists.

By the same reasoning, there are plenty of well-intentioned people who would claim that other amendments are equally outdated... like the one about freedom of their persons, papers, and effects from search.

You're really reaching now. The 2nd amendment is a historical curiosity now largely because private militias are confined to a bunch of survivalist hicks who fantasize about blowing up federal buildings.

[Liabmeasez]

Contrary to popular belief, it's really not that easy to purchase an assault rifle or handgun in the US of A.

Fixed. You can get rifles/shotguns easy peasy, the dc sniper used a 306 rifle, but unless there is a sniper loose, rifles and shotguns just don't have the sexy headline drawing power.


What is it that makes rpg's, grenades, cannons not considered "arms?" The explosive nature? Isn't a bullet an explosive projectile? Hell, you drop some dry ice in a 2liter bottle with a little water with the lid attached tight, and 5 minutes later you are considered a terrorist by today's laws. When I was a kid we had m80 fireworks. Basically a 1/4 stick of dynamite. So glad I still have all my fingers and toes. Many a tree felt my wrath, though.

--- Post Update ---

It's not necessary to repeal it since it doesn't grant individuals the right to own firearms; to suggest otherwise is rank historical revisionism of the worst kind. Whether you care to admit it or not, Congress has broad authority to restrict the sale and ownership of firearms in any manner it deems necessary. Up until SCOTUS was hijacked by right-wing ideologues, this has been upheld in every supreme court ruling. You only buy into this right-wink crankery because it supports your own ideology, and, I must say, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment borders on fanaticism. It's a form of constitutional literalism that shares much in common with the mindset of religious fundamentalists.
\

What crazy brain rotting kool-aid are you drinking? So, since the founding of our country, citizens have had the right to bare arms (you cannot deny this, to try is futile), they had this right when the very founders you say did not mean today's interpretation allowed joe blow farmer out in the middle of nowhere, not part of any militia, to own firearms. You'd think, if this was not their intent, they would not have allowed it. That it was allowed, and ubiquitous at that, leave you on the most unstable of ground trying to claim otherwise. Your displeasure as usual, seems not to be with the law/writing itself, but the onerous requirements needed to change it. The constitution, BOR's is supposed to be hard to change. That WAS the purpose.

[kertUtire]

What crazy brain rotting kool-aid are you drinking? So, since the founding of our country, citizens have had the right to bare arms (you cannot deny this, to try is futile), they had this right when the very founders you say did not mean today's interpretation allowed joe blow farmer out in the middle of nowhere, not part of any militia, to own firearms. You'd think, if this was not their intent, they would not have allowed it. That it was allowed, and ubiquitous at that, leave you on the most unstable of ground trying to claim otherwise. Your displeasure as usual, seems not to be with the law/writing itself, but the onerous requirements needed to change it. The constitution, BOR's is supposed to be hard to change. That WAS the purpose.

If the amendment had been intended to grant individuals the rights to keep and bear arms then the founders would have stated it explicitly. Nor does the operative clause make any statement of purpose beyond the prefactory portion concerning militias, invalidating the insurrectionist interpretation. The prefactory clause cannot be ignored or wished away. It addressed concerns by founders over disarming state militias in order to create national armies, and was underscored in numerous State Declarations of Rights. The 2nd Amendment is virtually identical to many state militia statues.

I'm a moderate on gun rights. I think certain people can own guns. Strict gun control laws, applied consistently, seems reasonable to me. What I object to is the fanatical literalism some people treat the Constitution as if it were a religious text, force every policy debate into a debate on its meaning when it has no bearing on the issue at all, and utterly subvert history to their own political aims.

[videolkif]

Can you name countries where it's legal to buy firearms online? Not talking about air guns and the like but full-blown rifles/pistols.

It's not even really legal in the US. If you order one online it's not (at least not legally)shipped to your doorstep unless you have some special licensing (like a gunshop). It gets shipped to a FFL holder/gunshop, then they'll run any background checks/paperwork they need to when you go to pick it up.

[MpbY5dkR]

It's not even really legal in the US. If you order one online it's not (at least not legally)shipped to your doorstep unless you have some special licensing (like a gunshop). It gets shipped to a FFL holder/gunshop, then they'll run any background checks/paperwork they need to when you go to pick it up.

not true. It only matters if it crosses state lines. If you buy a rifle/shotgun you can get it mailed direct in state. Assault rifle, handgun, or a rifle/shotgun that crosses state lines is what requires it to go to gun shop.

[Sxscdergh]

not true. It only matters if it crosses state lines. If you buy a rifle/shotgun you can get it mailed direct in state. Assault rifle, handgun, or a rifle/shotgun that crosses state lines is what requires it to go to gun shop.

Really!? Or does this vary state by state?
Never tried ordering a firearm from within my state. Will have to try this out. I know private individuals can sell to each other no issue, but I'd imagine that a business any size would need to back ground check. You might be correct, but it might also just be standard practice for all online sales to just go to an FFL holder?
There are some ebay type online auction sites. If I were to buy from a dude within my state, he can legally just ship it directly to me?

With a $30 FFL anyone can have certain firearms shipped to them directly which includes semi auto pistols and rifles.

[Evoncalabbalo]

not true. It only matters if it crosses state lines. If you buy a rifle/shotgun you can get it mailed direct in state. Assault rifle, handgun, or a rifle/shotgun that crosses state lines is what requires it to go to gun shop.

That's so horribly incorrect it's not funny...

[Sanremogirl]

That's so horribly incorrect it's not funny...

I live in Texas. I can go on a gun forum or auction site or online classified and have a gun at my door tomorrow. No background check at all. Can even be sent through US mail. Unless it is a handgun, assault rifle, or it crosses state lines. I said nothing about buying it from a shop or etailer. This is about how easy is it to get a gun delivered to your door. Answer: in most states, very easy. It won't be new, but it doesn't need to be.

[LongaDonga]

I always thought,that the right to bare arms was the American right to wear short sleeve shirts ?

[Kdgjhytiy]

I can't believe how many pages people have wasted on this topic of Gun ownership and how easy or difficult it is to get any sort of object that potentially deals death by projectile, whether pistol, rifle, shotgun etc.

The hows and whys of the 2nd amendment don't really matter, its a Law and until its repealed or revoked then gun ownership will continue and maniacs will acquire weapons still and go on random cinema, shopping mall, college shootouts with other members of the public being their targets, seriously, WGAF.

If there was going to be any sort of backlash or even period of mourning, or something that made people think "hey! doing this so soon after the denver cinema incident could be considered as being insensitive to those that died or were injured" then it would have been the delaying of that Tanner Gun show thing, held in all places, Denver.

People obviously feel the need to go out and buy another 20 guns and couple millions rounds of ammo, just incase some crazy communist parachutes his army into the old U S of A or some random Psycho dons SWAT gear and grabs an AR15 etc and decides he suddenly hates being Mr. Billy No mates.

If that's what people want to do, then let them do it, its no different than the guy who goes to church to pray that him and his family won't go the same way as those who did in the cinema, both pray to a God, just the other God is armed to the frigging teeth and will kill anyone with shifty eyes, soon as look at them.

Just glad that its all a million miles away from me (sh*t, probably jinxed myself now), so the chances of some Loony-tic ruining my evening fun and making my missus drop the popcorn is about as likely as me moving to the old U S of A, anytime soon.

/Goodnight and god bless.

[BlackBird]

The post was long, but there was a substantial amount of stupid in it.

I recommend the read.

[Hdzcxqoi]

The post was long, but there was a substantial amount of stupid in it.

I recommend the read.

Basically, whilst keeping it in context, and not baffling you with "long winded" explanations, I'll just say....

Does not matter how many people die from the illegal use of firearms in the USA, the citizens will still buy more and more legal firearms, just incase, they need to defend themselves against crazy individuals dealing death with their "boomsticks" or any foreign power that decides to suddenly invade, aka "red dawn" scenario.

[MpbY5dkR]

The hows and whys of the 2nd amendment don't really matter, its a Law and until its repealed or revoked then gun ownership will continue and maniacs will acquire weapons still and go on random cinema, shopping mall, college shootouts with other members of the public being their targets, seriously, WGAF.

How are we still confusing laws and rights?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

For the purpose of the context in this thread it's a right, not a law.

[glopomcyte]

How are we still confusing laws and rights?

Keep reading...

[st01en_lox]

Keep reading...

Give me the highlights.