But all guns aren't available to everyone, and not many people are advocating for that to be the case.
But that's very clearly not what that means. At the time, the "militia" were the people during war time. That's obviously why the terms were used interchangeably. "Well regulated" at the time meant to be capable and functioning at a high level. The "well regulated" "militia" referenced were infantry that could be quickly formed of normal citizens (ie. not required to be enlisted) without the need of regular soldiers. This very clearly means that the average law abiding citizen should have the right to own and operate arms equivalent to the standard regular infantry soldier of the time. Since you brought it up, an excerpt from the federalist papers , showing they specifically did not want the militia to be required to report to instructed training regularly, but be well equipped so they could train on their own. According to that, they very clearly wanted the people to be armed with equivalent equipment of standard infantry and have the right to transport and practice with them so they could be as capable as possible on their own. And for the government to offer training to all once or twice per year to help maximize the effectiveness of that training. It also explicitly shows that "well regulated" wasn't intended to mean under government control, but rather, highly capable. This means (or at leas, it would lead one to believe) they actually put a lot of thought and effort into the 2nd amendment, to make it incredibly concise. The Constitution doesn't restrict the power of the people. It restricts the power of the government.
The man in the surveillance shots does not look like Robert Card. It might be the lens/angle or whatever. But has a mass shooter ever evaded police, let alone gone on to do another shooting and evade police? Then he goes into a dumpster and shoots himself?
I can legally buy, own, and possess an automobile without a license, permit, or background check. Gun owners are more heavily regulated than car owners. People are only restricted or punished for illegal use of automobiles. And there is no right to bear automobiles in the US Constitution.
Are they? Can you expand on that? How so? You mean like seatbelts, or all guns require a safety switches? Or what it takes to get a drivers license vs a gun permit? Im not sure I agree with you Sly.
But those were hidden snipper attacks, a bit different than the variety where someone waltzes into a public place. And this guy did it twice in one night supposedly.
Solid point. They found a suicide note to the guy's son at the Maine shooter's house the day before they found his body. So he almost certainly expected to die.
The Federalist Papers are nothing more than a series of opinions written by men who leaned more toward a republic rather than a democracy. They are NOT laws. They were also written when we did not have a standing army....or at least a permanent one. 250 years later, a militia is no longer needed in America, as we have one of the larger standing armies in the world. There is no justifiable need for unfettered gun ownership whatsoever, jump through all the rhetorical hoops you choose to. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say "gun ownership without restrictions of any kind". Nowhere. Every other constitutional amendment has been open to interpretation to adjust for the times. Yet the Second Amendment has been deemed untouchable, no matter what. Seems like a lot of people in this country compensating for sexual inadequacy and/or incredibly low self esteem via gun ownership.......and if that pisses gun owners off, sorry, not sorry.............
I am well aware of that. But I was replying to a comment that was attempting to use the federalist papers as evidence of what people at that time thought. I was simply pointing out that the federalist papers support the idea that the founders intended every American to have the right to own and operate infantry equivalent firearms for the reasons stated. Nobody in this thread suggested that we should allow everyone "gun ownership without restrictions of any kind". That is a straw man argument. If you would like to update the Constitution there is a process for doing that. It requires 3/4 of the states to agree to a constitutional convention. Good luck with that. Or for the Supreme Court to rule that way. They have revisited and updated how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted multiple times. I'm not disagreeing with that (even though you appear to be claiming it hasn't happened?) But people are clamoring for greater restrictions than the supreme court or the constitution allow. A huge portion of the population doesn't want that. And if that pisses off people who don't like gun owners, I guess
Using 236 year old papers that aren't law and an outdated interpretation of the constitution are also strawman arguments. They can be just as easily refuted and have been. The second amendment was written because at the time the people were the militia. We didn't have the military we do today. If there was a war you grabbed your guns and joined in. The second amendment was written to assure this at the time, not so small dicked men could over compensate. It's outdated and wrongly interpreted.
How so? I was responding to somebody who used them to support their argument. What they are is a look inside the minds of the founding fathers and what thier mindset was regarding "well regulated" and "militia". Which is how I used them. If you're going to get on somebody for using straw man arguments I'd suggest going afte the person who brought it up. It is correctly interpreted by all available measures. We have the ability to change it. We don't have the will to change it.
And you used them to support your's. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. The founders had a totally different meaning in mind for the second amendment when they wrote the constitution. You said yourself at the time it meant something different, people were the militia then. This amendment was how they secured the military presence. Now, the people themselves are no longer directly the militia. Well regulated militias are no longer needed and are outdated terms. Because we have a different form of military, the interpretation of the amendment should be modified to fit to current standings as others have. The people have the will. Those in office just refuse to hear it.
That's false. The US had a military in 1775. Over a decade before the constitution was drafted. Don't try to re-write history to support your point of view. You're better than that.
We did not have a standing/formal military at that time. We were still trying to form a country. The army was all voluntary, and very difficult to find (and keep) volunteers beyond their original enlistment. After the war, Congress did not particularly want a standing army (or navy). Or at least large ones. The citizenry was expected to participate in the common defense if the need arose. Not so much anymore......
It's not false. I'm rewriting nothing. The Continental army was pretty exclusively volunteers and very haphazard. It still relied heavily on soldiers to provide their own weapons from home. A well regulated militia was still much in need then. Now we don't rely on civilians to bring their own guns with them to war.
The 2nd amendment was clearly intended as much for defense against the standing army as it was against foreign attacks. Otherwise they wouldn't have included the "free state" in the language. The first regular U.S. fighting force, the Continental Army, was organized by the Second Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. It's the force that successfully fought off the British (yes, as a part of the alliance and with the help of militia). And service in the US military has been voluntary for virtually all of US history. This is all very clear by the wording of the 2nd Amendment. And is supported when you read the statements made by the founding fathers at the time. The Supreme Court has revisited this numerous times and agreed. Over half of the states in the country also agree.
