House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons: Reeeee - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166836] e: Also a clarification, as the militia is divided into distinct subgroups which [B]absolutely[/B] includes 'those who signed up for the national guard and local officiated militia'.[/QUOTE] Yes it includes them, but they are only one of two classes. The other, equal class are qualifying individuals who are NOT signed up for the national guard. i.e. everyone else

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166846]I disagree with the 1903 ruling saying everyone is the militia - I think the purpose of the amendment is to arm citizens for the purpose of allowing well regulated militias to form in response to tyranny (considering groups like the Minutemen). The text of the amendment, in literal terms, says: smoothly running militias are necessary for the security of the freedom of the country (e.g. against tyranny of the government), therefore, the right of the people (being everyone) to own weapons shall not be infringed. Reductionism like "well sticks are technically arms if used like weapons so you can have those haha but no guns" is clearly not in keeping with the intent of the text.[/QUOTE] I don't know who is arguing that 'you can have sticks but not guns'. By strict interpretation, arms could be considered to include nuclear weaponry (though obviously that wouldn't fly in today's world, nuclear arms didn't exist even in theory at the time the amendment was written). Arms is generic and it doesn't specify an amount each citizen may have. [quote=Zombinie]Yes it includes them, but they are only one of two classes. The other, equal class are qualifying individuals who are NOT signed up for the national guard. i.e. everyone else[/quote] Aye, but the founders were obviously thinking of the local militias which existed before and after the Constitution was written. They basically told Congress to keep watch over them and for the states to ensure that their militia were well run. More or less they attempted to turn all these small, local, militias into a national-guard equivalent, though with much more state-based independence and one that wasn't run by, but was overseen by and held accountable to, the Congress.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166845]Provided that they are well run, sure. If they're not well run they don't fall under those protections - who makes that distinction is absolutely someone who is overwatching them - and who would be overwatching them would likely be their local or state government,[B] who would thereby by accountable to the federal government[/B] (via Congress) should their militia prove unruly. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166813] News flash: You don't fight the government in militias formed and managed by the government.[/QUOTE] Come on, man

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166851]I don't know who is arguing that 'you can have sticks but not guns'. By strict interpretation, arms could be considered to include nuclear weaponry (though obviously that wouldn't fly in today's world, nuclear arms didn't exist even in theory at the time the amendment was written). Arms is generic and it doesn't specify an amount each citizen may have.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166757][B]They were armed with clubs, mainly, but they are nonetheless 'arms'.[/B][/QUOTE] Addtionally: [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166851]By strict interpretation, arms could be considered to include nuclear weaponry (though obviously that wouldn't fly in today's world, nuclear arms didn't exist even in theory at the time the amendment was written)[/QUOTE] Hence: [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166694][B]Please note I don't believe militias and so forth are a good idea in this century, so I don't hang most of my arguments on the Second Amendment to begin with.[/B] I already believe its meaning has been extensively violated [B]but also that some "infringements" are both necessary and beneficial.[/B] All I'm saying is "Constitutionally protected" seems like sort of an empty phrase.[/QUOTE] I really wonder whether you are reading what I'm writing or what you think I'm writing.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53166866]Come on, man[/QUOTE] He's just trying reeeeeaaaaaly hard here to interpret it in any way that isn't an individual right that the government is limited from infringing on.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53166866]Come on, man[/QUOTE] Are you arguing what you feel is right or what is historically accountable fact? The framers specifically wanted these militia to answer to their states, who were to arm them and ensure they were kept well running, not just to fight the federal government but because - at the time the Constitution was written - America didn't have much of an organized national military, and so they tried to ensure that all these tiny pockets of armed groups remained well-armed and equipped to ensure that they were able to nonetheless keep the country safe even if the national army wasn't up to the task at the time (even if simply due to the vast distances between the states versus the availability/deployment of colonial military forces). It's a matter of fact that they wanted those local militia to be accountable to their state, vice versa, and for the state to be accountable to Congress. And of course they would want that because they don't want those militias to go undersupplied or underarmed by a neglectful state government as that would otherwise defeat the point of turning them into an ersatz national guard. @ Grenadiac: You realize that I was arguing that they wouldn't be exempting anything because otherwise they would've had to make a specific provision stating 'these arms but not those arms'. They generically stated 'arms' as I've now continuously repeated. Thinking that I've said 'well that means you can have sticks but not guns' is facetious. [I]Firearms are a sort of arm -- it's literally in the name of them.[/I]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166876]Are you arguing what you feel is right or what is historically accountable fact? The framers specifically wanted these militia to answer to their states, who were to arm them and ensure they were kept well running, not just to fight the federal government but because - at the time the Constitution was written - America didn't have much of an organized national military, and so they tried to ensure that all these tiny pockets of armed groups remained well-armed and equipped to ensure that they were able to nonetheless able to keep the country safe even if the national army wasn't up to the task at the time (even if simply due to the vast distances between the states versus the availability/deployment of colonial military forces). It's a matter of fact that they wanted those local militia to be accountable to their state, vice versa, and for the state to be accountable to Congress. And of course they would want that because they don't want those militias to go undersupplied or underarmed by a neglectful state government as that would otherwise defeat the point of turning them into an ersatz national guard.[/QUOTE] Dude, you even quoted it. [quote](2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[/quote] Is this the hill you want to die on? The intent of the second amendment is very clear... there's no sense in trying to change what it means, considering it already isn't adhered to.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53166873]He's just trying reeeeeaaaaaly hard here to interpret it in any way that isn't an individual right that the government is limited from infringing on.[/QUOTE] "All the other amendments in the bill of rights are individual rights, but definitely not the 2nd one" never made sense to me.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166883]Dude, you even quoted it. Is this the hill you want to die on? The intent of the second amendment is very clear... there's no sense in trying to change what it means, considering it already isn't adhered to.[/QUOTE] 'Unorganized' in this context meaning not a part of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. [B]All[/B] of the militias of the 1700s-1800s would fall under the 'unorganized' definition.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166889]'Unorganized' in this context meaning not a part of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. [B]All[/B] of the militias of the 1700s-1800s would fall under the 'unorganized' definition.[/QUOTE] What it means is that a militia with no government oversight is still a protected group.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166892]What it means is that a militia with no government oversight is still a protected group.[/QUOTE] They specifically had government oversight and were protected groups as a result. They had no oversight before the Constitution - the Constitution gave oversight for them while also expanding their national role and importance. Before said Constitution they were also left to fend for themselves and the states had no obligation to ensure that they were well run or well equipped.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166893]They specifically had government oversight and were protected groups as a result.[/QUOTE] They specifically do NOT have government oversight, hence being considered "unorganized." You are trying so hard to win this argument you've gone full circle and are actually taking a far more pro-gun stance than I am in trying to tell me what 2A means. If you want the states to fund and equip any old militia with serious hardware, I'm game.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166894]They specifically do NOT have government oversight, hence being considered "unorganized."[/QUOTE] No, they were not a member of the military - hence being considered 'unorganized'. [quote]You are trying so hard to win this argument you've gone full circle and are actually taking a far more pro-gun stance than I am in trying to tell me what 2A means. If you want the states to fund and equip any old militia, I'm game.[/quote] Where have I ever changed my stance? Where have I gone 'full circle'? It seems to me this whole time you've been insinuating that I believe, somehow, that 'arms' doesn't encompass every sort of arms. They didn't say 'you have a right to a sword' or 'you have a right to a gun'. They said 'you have a right to a weapon'. But they [I]also[/I] said 'a right to a weapon so long as you're a member of a well-run militia'. The states were required in the 1700s to fund and equip local militia and were responsible for their actions to the Congress. I don't see why that's any different from a national registry so long as the registry is compromised of state-based registrations that are then submitted to the Congress for review and accountability.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166897]No, they were not a member of the military - hence being considered 'unorganized'.[/QUOTE] If they had government oversight and were subject to centralized rules, they would not be an unorganized militia. The National Guard and Naval Militia, with government oversight, were subject to centralized rules, hence being an organized militia.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166893]They specifically had government oversight and were protected groups as a result. They had no oversight before the Constitution - the Constitution gave oversight for them while also expanding their national role and importance. Before said Constitution they were also left to fend for themselves and the states had no obligation to ensure that they were well run or well equipped.[/QUOTE] I get what he's saying. He's saying we just need to form an "unorganized militia" and the government has to supply us with gear and arms. in order to ensure that we're "well equipped".

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166897]No, they were not a member of the military - hence being considered 'unorganized'. Where have I ever changed my stance? Where have I gone 'full circle'? It seems to me this whole time you've been insinuating that I believe, somehow, that 'arms' doesn't encompass every sort of arms. They didn't say 'you have a right to a sword' or 'you have a right to a gun'. They said 'you have a right to a weapon'. But they [I]also[/I] said 'a right to a weapon so long as you're a member of a well-run militia'. The states were required in the 1700s to fund and equip local militia and were responsible for their actions to the Congress. I don't see why that's any different from a national registry so long as the registry is compromised of state-based registrations that are then submitted to the Congress for review and accountability.[/QUOTE] The text quite clearly states that you, the individual, have a right to a weapon for the purpose of becoming a member of a well regulated militia in the case that one is needed. It is a provision that ensures such militias will be able to form in such an emergency that they are required.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53166901]If they had government oversight and were subject to centralized rules, they would not be an unorganized militia. The National Guard and Naval Militia, with government oversight, were subject to centralized rules, hence being an organized militia.[/QUOTE] The government did not organize them, hence 'unorganized'. What they did do is require for states to be held accountable for them to the Congress. That doesn't make them any more organized - it just makes States more responsible for the actions of their militia and for their well-being. [quote]The text quite clearly states that you, the individual, have a right to a weapon for the purpose of becoming a member of a well regulated militia in the case that one is needed.[/quote] I would argue that given it's a pretext to the whole statement that being a member of said militia is the first requirement, rather than you 'obtaining arms to then be a part of one'. There were local militias everywhere back then, after all, and I doubt the framers would allow for bandits to arm themselves under the pretext that 'no, really, we're a militia because we all decided to pick up a gun therefore we're militia'. It does allow for 'emergency coalitions' to form, sure, but it's obvious given the historical context that they were more concerned with safeguarding the nation by bolstering the arms and well-being of these tiny groups of armed civilians who were mainly guarding their towns. It was a 'that's great; keep doing that and, states, you are now required to support them and ensure they're well run' sort of deal alongside the 'and in case this whole experiment goes tits up, it's in the constitution that you're allowed to and encouraged to resist the tyranny of your government should it become tyrannical' -- though that's not really in the second amendment so much as a general commandment from the introductory statements written into the constitution itself. [quote=Silence I Kill You]I get what he's saying. He's saying we just need to form an "unorganized militia" and the government has to supply us with gear and arms. in order to ensure that we're "well equipped".[/quote] There's that, though I think it's more or less unnecessary these days given that said militia would likely just show up with the weapons they already own. What they should ensure, however, is that you're "well run". Gun safety courses, places to store your weapons that aren't your house, lessons on how to secure your arms and maintain them, et cetera. And, in exchange, said militia is responsible for actions you take with the arms granted (or not) to you because the organization of that militia and how it's run is left up to its executive staff - though they, themselves, are accountable to the local and state government who is then accountable to Congress. Basically what you'd expect from a modern day militia, given preponderance of what militia were in the 1700s. I don't think more accountability is a bad idea.

The emergency doesn't need to be specified. According to the Constitution, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is important "to the security of a free State" - meaning anything that compromises that security, be it foreign invasion or domestic abuses, is open season for an armed response by armed citizens. Do I think this is a good idea? Not necessarily. Is that what the Constitution says? Yes. [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166905]I don't think more accountability is a bad idea.[/QUOTE] Me neither. That doesn't mean the Constitution supports it. Arguing from Constitutionality is not the correct thing to do in this case, because it will cause you to lose. [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53166905]There's that, though I think it's more or less unnecessary these days given that said militia would likely just show up with the weapons they already own. What they should ensure, however, is that you're "well run". Gun safety courses, places to store your weapons that aren't your house, lessons on how to secure your arms and maintain them, et cetera. And, in exchange, said militia is responsible for actions you take with the arms granted (or not) to you because the organization of that militia and how it's run is left up to its executive staff - though they, themselves, are accountable to the local and state government who is then accountable to Congress. Basically what you'd expect from a modern day militia, given preponderance of what militia were in the 1700s.[/quote] Gun safety courses are great. I think they should be required as part of the purchase process from an FFL (for the first time). Places to store your weapons that aren't your house? What good are they in the event of an emergency if you can't access them, either because you're simply too far away or, perhaps, in the event of the hypothetical tyranny emergency, the government has blockaded/destroyed the place where they are kept?

[quote=Grenadiac]Me neither. That doesn't mean the Constitution supports it.[/quote] Given that the Constitution supported efforts near-exactly like it back in the time in which it was founded, I can't imagine that you can really argue that it doesn't support it. [quote]Places to store your weapons that aren't your house? What good are they in the event of an emergency if you can't access them, either because you're simply too far away or, perhaps, in the event of the hypothetical tyranny emergency, the government has blockaded/destroyed the place where they are kept?[/quote] What they're good for is keeping them out of reach of your children and untrustworthies, kept in a secure location that only you can access as a member of that militia. It wouldn't mean you couldn't keep your weapon at home, as militia members often did, it would be more of a perk and safety consideration option for those who were members of the militia. If the government has blockaded the place where they're kept (without very good and just cause) I imagine that's about the time that open rebellion needs to start as that's obviously tyranny on the face of it. After all, many towns had centralized armories to ensure good safekeeping of those weapons and to keep them out of the hands of the unscrupulous and crime-minded, the access to which was controlled and managed by the local militia and/or nightwatch. It'd be little different than how police officers operate and manage their weapons/equipment, complete with having a station armory in addition to being allowed to keep guns in their home. No surprise that it's not very different either, given that local militia of the 1700s were more or less 'the cops' back then if your town didn't have, at the same time, a night-watch. Nonetheless, the firearms being kept there or in your home the militia would be responsible for the usage of your arms. Meaning they are accountable for what you do with the weapons you've either been supplied or showed up with, including keeping them kept up and maintained - but also to ensure that they aren't misused.

...guys. Come on. Did you just have the militia debate? The second amendment is protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The militia was an official part of the government. It is mentioned in the Constitution itself in both the articles for the president and Congress. The president is given the power to call forth the militia specifically to put down insurrection in the US. SO THEN: why, in the section of the Constitution where the people are reserving specific rights for the people, would there be an amendment telling the government that the government can't disarm....the...government? Because that isn't what it is fucking saying. They fought a war that spent a good deal of time fighting the loyalist militia. They also recognized that a militia was necessary for a government to function because it needed some means of enforcement and quelling insurrection. The second amendment is stating that because a militia is a necessary evil for the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second amendment is a check on the government militia. (Note that the militia was supposed to be the only regular military arm of the federal government. We weren't supposed to retain a standing army)

That interpretation makes even more sense than mine.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53167102]...guys. Come on. Did you just have the militia debate? The second amendment is protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The militia was an official part of the government. It is mentioned in the Constitution itself in both the articles for the president and Congress. The president is given the power to call forth the militia specifically to put down insurrection in the US. SO THEN: why, in the section of the Constitution where the people are reserving specific rights for the people, would there be an amendment telling the government that the government can't disarm....the...government? Because that isn't what it is fucking saying. They fought a war that spent a good deal of time fighting the loyalist militia. They also recognized that a militia was necessary for a government to function because it needed some means of enforcement and quelling insurrection. The second amendment is stating that because a militia is a necessary evil for the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second amendment is a check on the government militia. (Note that the militia was supposed to be the only regular military arm of the federal government. We weren't supposed to retain a standing army)[/QUOTE] Are they talking about the same militia though? As far as I'm aware the militia (capital M) wasn't the same as the local, town-based, militias throughout the country? e.g. the Colonial Militia versus the local town militia of New York or the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_militia]Virginia Colonial Militia[/url] versus the town militia of Bristol.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167131]Are they talking about the same militia though? As far as I'm aware the militia (capital M) wasn't the same as the local, town-based, militias throughout the country? e.g. the Colonial Militia versus the local town militia of New York or the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_militia]Virginia Colonial Militia[/url] versus the town militia of Bristol.[/QUOTE] Which would still be official government entities. The bill of rights are specifically rights reserved by the people. This is reflected in the phrasing as well. They don't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, but rather the right of the people.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53167155]Which would still be official government entities. The bill of rights are specifically rights reserved by the people. This is reflected in the phrasing as well. They don't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, but rather the right of the people.[/QUOTE] Would they be? I was under the impression a good deal of militias throughout the country at the time were self-organized (read: the people just decided they needed a militia and so made one, much like the night-watches) and not directed by the government before the Constitution, many of them using the english system as their 'precedent' for existing, which I presume wouldn't be officially recognized at the time we ratified our Declaration of Independence. Rather, it seems that the Constitution attempts to incorporate them into the new Republic - but I'm not sure that makes them 'official government entities' as far as their formation and governance at that time other than that the new government called on them to recognize themselves as official government entities. e: It also seems strange to me to disregard the context that sets that amendment off. To me it feels a bit like interpreting the following as 'all the people may be armed with guns': Lawyers of good standing, in consideration for orderly proceedings of State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I mean, what's the point of 'lawyers of good standing' at all in that statement if it has no real bearing on it? Or 'in consideration for orderly proceedings of State'? [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment]I also looked this up and it turns out my argument is one that has been argued in SCOTUS and both ruled as correct constitutional interpretation and not correct interpretation.[/url] [quote]In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.[/quote] It seems up until 10 years ago it was held as the precedent since 1939.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53167164]Would they be? I was under the impression a good deal of militias throughout the country at the time were self-organized (read: the people just decided they needed a militia and so made one, much like the night-watches) and not directed by the government before the Constitution, many of them using the english system as their 'precedent' for existing, which I presume wouldn't be officially recognized at the time we ratified our Declaration of Independence. Rather, it seems that the Constitution attempts to incorporate them into the new Republic - but I'm not sure that makes them 'official government entities' as far as their formation and governance at that time other than that the new government called on them to recognize themselves as official government entities.[/QUOTE] [url]http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0823-2/[/url] There was a lot of concern over military authority, but it was decided that militia authority should be granted to the federal government (when needed) because the alternative was a standing army. The larger the government forces, the greater threat to liberty. The local militias are generally irrelevant if they weren't in a position to be federalized. Though I think most of them could be. In either case, the Constitution had already laid out it's definition of a militia. It then specifically granted the right to keep and bear arms to the people themselves. Not local governments or local militias. People.