John Paul Stevens' tweak to the 2nd Amendment could reduce gun violence

Serving in a government job, seems to cause a person to become autocratic.

5 Likes

When people get that old we need to stop caring what they say.

2 Likes

Interesting discussion on “well-regulated.” When I try to debate our 2A right with, “What part of ‘shall not be infringed,’ don’t you understand?” I usually get a response that says, “What part of ‘well-regulated’ do you not understand.” The gun-controller usually adds that none of the Bill of Rights are absolute rights, which I understand. But the gun-controller fails to understand that you can’t regulate or restrict the right so much that it begins to infringe on the right, otherwise the 2nd Amendment becomes meaningless.

8 Likes

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Source:
https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

And the examples given in the same link:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary , and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

9 Likes

And here is something else you all should take a look at regarding militia, etc.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-terms-‘arms’-‘well-regulated’-and-‘militia’-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

And here is what the writer states at the end of this very good article:

Understanding the history of the Second Amendment, if it were written in today’s style, it might be written as…

  • The right the people to own and carry arms, even for use as a military comparable militia , shall not be infringed.

… so, you see, it is actually very shameful and ignorant of that so-called “Justice” to propose something as profiundly wrong.

9 Likes

I belong to full 30. Full 30 is well regulated. Full 30 is made up of all of you. Therefore, i believe i belong to the Full 30 militia.which the way i see it, my(our) weapons are legal & off limits to the dick-o-crats!

8 Likes

The retired justice should look up how federal law defines the militia.

10 USC sec311 Militia: Composition and Classes, as I recall.

Of course, that would contradict what he is suggesting, so he would probably ignore it.

8 Likes

:+1:

4 Likes

Agree completely on the use and meaning of well regulated (outfitted / supplied) but “infringed” dose not only mean “removed” as in your rewrite. It means it can’t be limited to any extent.

Of all the enumerated rights we hold, the 2nd Ammendment, by virtue of “shall not be infringed” says to me that it clearly IS an absolute right.

7 Likes

This was my thinking as well.

6 Likes

That is what i used to think as well, that infringe meant restrict, encroach, limit, etc. Then someone pointed it out to me (with sources) that in legal terms it mainly meant “break contract”.

Then i remembered reading up specifically why the word “infringed” was used. And what i read was basically that Madison was an intellectual, and chose different methods to say the same thing in every amendment - that the government cannot take the right away.

6 Likes

@Mosinvirus

I have heard that the Supreme Court believes that “shall not be infringed” refers to the right to own and bear arms, but does not refer to just any arms.

Personally, I am fine with private citizens having most of the guns that our military has. But, if you are talking nukes, no, let’s keep that highly restricted.

6 Likes

If the 2nd Amendment is an “absolute” right, wouldn’t that mean that recently convicted felons can still go out and buy a gun? I don’t know of any right that is absolute. For instance, with respect to the First Amendment, we all know that you can’t yell “Fire!” in a movie theater or show an obscene porn movie on a kids channel. And yet, we hold the precepts of the First Amendment as sacrosanct in our country. Unfortunately, our country doesn’t have the same reverence for the 2nd Amendment, as noted by much of society’s disdain for it and the courts’ unwillingness to recognize what many of us on here believe it stands for. But I respectfully disagree that it is an absolute right. Just my humble opinion, though.

4 Likes

Aha!!! I have had plenty of discussions on these topics as well.

As to felons. I have a different perspective. If they have served their time, and someone decided they can rejoin the society i say they should regain their rights. Plus not all felonies are violent offenses. If on the other hand we are not comfortable with felons getting firearms then perhaps we should not have them rejoin society where they will have access to other means of causing violence.

As to yelling “Fire” in a theater, or speaking in general… you actually can say whatever you want, but then you will punished. So you can use speech in the matter that is up to you, but if it causes panic and harm to others you will be punished. Guns are treated differently. You are being prevented from using any gun you want and wherever you want, to where you dont have a choice to either use it to cause harm or not. And that is exactly the thing that causes more deaths. For example gun-free zones.

6 Likes

Excellent points! I agree with some convicted felons being able to regain their rights after a period of time. Perhaps non-violent convictions after a period of time successfully completing probation and parole requirements. I have a friend with a 30 year non-violent felony who’s never been in trouble afterwards, but not all of his rights are restored. But those with long rap sheets and multiple felonies who might otherwise qualify for three-strikes-you’re-out laws may be a different story.

I also agree that “gun-free zones” are dangerous and mis-placed and serve to invite violence against innocent victims.

5 Likes

Nukes is another one of those subjects i have discussed at length with other people…

The purpose of the second amendment is to oppose oppression and tyrany. What that would mean is to be able to oppose the government that attempts to oppress the people. Usually, using nukes would mean to elliminate people, not oppress them. That is why there isn’t one person in full control of a nuke. And which is why no country would ever launch a nuke onto its own land, f#%$ing its own resources.

We as a nation have nukes. So yes, you, me, everyone else here has nukes.

Once you get them to agree to the terms of discussion (relevant vs irrelevant) you move onto more realistic topics.

5 Likes

I’ve used this similar point with the anti-2A crowd when I’m in a conversation with them. Those not as polite and eloquently. :wink: Because, Torgue.

8 Likes

Also as to felons.

Lets consider, for example, that a felon has a family. When they return from serving their time their family will not be able to own guns in the same house.

And i should mention that i am for death penalty for anyone who purposely and unequivocally takes lives, rapes people, etc. Those should never be allowed to rejoin the society.

8 Likes

I want a mini-nuke launcher for HD and edc.

3 Likes

Lol. Oh come on Dad. Just one? Please? I’ll use it safely, I promise.

6 Likes