Why are modern gun owners so willing to throw the 2nd Amendment under the bus?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Galileo, Nov 19, 2016.

  1. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "The most important consequence of recovering the original understanding is that it demonstrates that both of the modern interpretations of the Second Amendment do great violence to the text, effectively erasing half of its meaning....

    "Rather than give greater weight to only part of the amendment's text, as both modern interpretations do, the original civic rights interpretation of the Second Amendment demands that the text be read holistically. The Second Amendment serves as a reminder that the right to bear arms is as much an obligation owed to government as it is a claim against government interference. Moreover, the original civic conception of the Second Amendment emphasizes that there can be no right to bear arms without extensive regulation.2"
    http://www.keithhunt.com/Guncontrol7.html

    I mean I can understand why gun control advocates are not that enthusiastic about the Second Amendment. They want to reduce gun violence and save lives. But why have pro-gun activists put so much effort into invalidating a significant portion of the Second Amendment's meaning?
     
  2. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    7,954
    Likes Received:
    2,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You state Keith Hunt's opinion as if it is fact.
     
  3. OrlandoChuck

    OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,002
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone who states that gun control efforts by politicians has a thing to do with public safety is not paying attention. Each piece of gun control legislation is an incremental effort to eventually rid the country of guns. One only has to look to California and NY to see that when they score a win, they then push for more. Their efforts don't reduce the stats so they keep up their anti gun efforts.
     
  4. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    56,369
    Likes Received:
    37,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is this your new angle?
     
  5. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    44,271
    Likes Received:
    24,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I call bull (*)(*)(*)(*). Please support that claim.

    I expect Trump and the GOP to pass national right to carry for law abiding citizens.
     
  6. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Regulation is necessary to form a Constitutional militia. In fact, the Second Amendment uses the wording "well regulated".

    Interestingly, there is no conflict between the Second Amendment and most regulations favored by gun control advocates. The one law which could potentially interfere with the formation of a militia (the one that severely restricts ownership of machine guns) doesn't seem to cause much controversy. The Supreme Court effectively puts its stamp of approval on that law in Heller.
     
  7. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    44,271
    Likes Received:
    24,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think “well-regulated” means “subject to extensive government regulations.” The term meant 'being in proper working order." So something "well-regulated" was functioning as expected. The amendment means that the government is powerless to disarm the Citizens.
     
  8. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    12,318
    Likes Received:
    6,749
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    who is this fellow and what are his credentials as a scholar? what was the natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment and what duties does a natural right place on free men?

    - - - Updated - - -


    that's nonsense at the federal level because the federal government doesn't properly have any gun control powers. using the commerce clause as a means to creating that power is fundamentally dishonest.
     
  9. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If you go to the first page you can see the author's name is Saul Cornell.
    http://www.keithhunt.com/Guncontrol1.html

    "Saul Cornell, is the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University, a former Professor of history at Ohio State University and the former Director of the Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute.[1]

    "He received a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania in 1989 [2] and is now one of the nation’s leading authorities on early American constitutional thought.[3]"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Cornell

    I wasn't addressing the issue of whether the Commerce Clause grants the federal government the power to regulate guns so my point about the Second Amendment still stands.
     
  10. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It means regulated by the government as Alexander Hamilton made clear:
    "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.... What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen."
    - Federalist 29
     
  11. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    32,610
    Likes Received:
    6,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The same Hamilton that was killed by a private firearm in a duel? That Hamilton? Bravo!!! You folks are funny!
     
  12. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    7,954
    Likes Received:
    2,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does your point include that the Framers never passed any law restricting firearms ownership in any way, nor were any federal restrictions on firearm ownership enacted until 1934?
     
  13. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    44,271
    Likes Received:
    24,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. And the text is quite explicit, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Dems have destroyed their national majority status by their hostility toward this fundamental right of American citizens and below is the map that results:

    1974 elections:
    [​IMG]

    2016 elections
    [​IMG]

    You might want to quit before you are completely buried
     
  14. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    12,318
    Likes Received:
    6,749
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Saul Cornell is pretty much a joke in Second Amendment scholarship. He is a paid stooge of the Anti Gun Joyce Foundation and he's a joke because he constantly mixes the original intent of the founders with the 1930s era decisions of the FDR courts. He also interchanges state police powers with non existent federal powers in an attempt to pretend that the founders wanted federal controls on firearms.
     
  15. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The fact that "well-regulated" is used in the same sentence as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" shows that regulation does not necessarily conflict with the right protected by the Second Amendment.
     
  16. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Which Founding Father would you prefer? Jefferson- the radical libertarian who impregnated his slave and believed all laws should be abolished every 19 years?
     
  17. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    7,954
    Likes Received:
    2,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does "well-regulated" modify, and whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
     
  18. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    32,610
    Likes Received:
    6,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You obviously just don't get it, which is why you should probably just stop while you're ahead, clearly the 2nd is way beyond you...
     
  19. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    44,271
    Likes Received:
    24,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a prefatory phrase. As you pointed out, no Framer had any vision of the Federal Government regulating the Militia. They could "organize" the Militia in times of crisis, and they could do so because it was already existing and functioning or "well ordered" and of course, armed. Just because I should have a well ordered mind doesn't mean the Federal Government is empowered to order it.
     
  20. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I already pointed out that Hamilton argued in favor of the militia being regulated by federal government. His political opponents like Patrick Henry wanted the states to have more power to regulate the militia. But ultimately the federalists won. Article I of the Constitution explicitly spells out Congressional authority over the militia. Sorry, but you don't get to selectively pick and choose which parts of the Constitution should be followed.
     
  21. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Obviously, it modifies militia which was roughly equivalent to the people at that time. The amendment must be read holistically and in context because that's normally how a piece of text is read.
     
  22. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    44,271
    Likes Received:
    24,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Article 1 empowers Congress creates the Army and Navy, but not the already existent militia, which of course is armed and Congress, of course, is barred from disarming it.

    While Congress is given the power in Article I of the Constitution to create the Army and the Navy, it may simply organize the militia because it already exists and is already armed, and Congress of course, is barred from disarming it.

    Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create, the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to organize “the” militia, a body already in existence, already armed, and of course, Congress is barred from disarming us.
    Exactly.
     
  23. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    7,954
    Likes Received:
    2,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The militia didn't include men over the age of 45, or women, or freed slaves, or Congessmen, but none of them were prohibited from owning guns.
     
  24. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,210
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Second Amendment is neutral as far as that is concerned. It neither prohibited nor protected gun ownership by such individuals.

    - - - Updated - - -

    It seems like you basically agree with me except you don't want to use the word "regulate". I'm not really into playing such semantic games.
     
  25. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    44,271
    Likes Received:
    24,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. I have simply noted the obvious: the 2nd amendment expressly forbids the disarming of "The People". As SCOTUS noted the prefatory phrase could be equally stated: Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    The prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. The operative clause connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
     

Share This Page