The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[I_made_linda_lovelace_gag]

how am I crazy? everything I have said I have proven. the anti-gun people go on tangents and never source anything they say

[Prospero]

Yes crazy obsession with guns when you look at the body count in your nation. Too many guns in the hands of lunatics. It is a signal of insanity when archaic notions are more important than the lives of children. If the constitution genuinely confers such a right to let ant idiot own a gun the it is surely time for it to be amended. But the evil Gun lobby block all controls. Yes that insane.

[trish]

No linda, you're making what is known as a category mistake: Chicago street gangs are not a militia. I'm over 17 and under 45 and I'm not in any of the well regulated militia to which the second amendment refers. Yes I'm in that subset of the population to which U.S. Code Section 311 refers, but that is not the well regulated militia referenced in the second amendment. Those militia no longer exist. If you want to find modern grounds for preserving the second amendment you'll have to look elsewhere...perhaps you can argue it establishes the equality of ammosexuals with other gender identities.

[buttslinger]

It's good that the gun people make their case, I'm a mental midget and lazy, so I'm not going to hire a lawyer to see if you are 100% correct, in fact I'm not even sure what you're saying, we were all in a Militia and didn't know it?
I would rather tangent off into 2014 than fixate on some Constitutional justification for digging machine guns. It sounds like when Dick Cheney's lawyers found the best justification for shooting someone in the face when you're drunk.
Linda Darling, you're already ahead. You're winning. Why complicate your case with some cherry you picked off the Sean Hannity tree?


If you made your point and nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about, please break it down and woo us over to your side. I'm not trying to be milittous, I've never even seen one of these Militias you're talking about. What do they look like? Where do they live?

[danthepoetman]

Let me just post these statistics again... These are not compelling enough on their own??!

[Turlington]

Uh, oh!

http://civictribune.com/dod-insider-...firearms-2015/

[danthepoetman]

Uh, oh!

http://civictribune.com/dod-insider-...firearms-2015/

It would be nice. But I rather think it's an hysterical extreme right wing article. No one wants to seize all weapons in the US. No one has such power.

[Prospero]

Spot on Dan. The right is so full of absurd paranoia. It is a shame though that is there is no such plan.

[thombergeron]

Speaking of “sourcing”…

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

Do you consider it relevant that the source you're quoting is a 325 year old British tabloid? Are you at all familiar with any of the legal or academic thinking on the topic of gun rights that has been undertaken in either the 20th or 21st centuries?

T`he project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

You're clearly capable of cutting-and-pasting a small part of it, but perhaps you could briefly summarize Hamilton's larger point in Federalist No. 29.

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

What relevance could this passage possibly have to anything? A narrow military staffing regulation that predates the U.S. Constitution? And yet you ask if your opponents can “stay on point?”

the constitution is still law. just because you think a part is irrelevant doesnt change that.

So in your view, you take the literal text of the Second Amendment, interpret that text solely through a definition written 120 years later in the Militia Act of 1903, and boom, done. That’s all you need to know.

You might consider, however, that there may be a few other pieces of legislation and some court decisions that are relevant to your argument. For instance, regarding your convenient conception of the “unorganized” militia, you might consult the Selective Service Act of 1917 or the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as a start.

You might also consider that numerous restrictions on private gun ownership have been found to be constitutional, despite your assertion that “everyone is in the militia.” The federal assault weapons ban survived several constitutional challenges, though it was never challenged on Second Amendment grounds. But numerous state-level assault weapons bans have survived Second Amendment challenges, most recently in New York earlier this year. Antonin Scalia, in the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia V. Heller decision, listed various types of firearms that could be banned from private ownership under the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment does not guarantee you an unlimited right to possess firearms. You may think it does, but that’s only because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[8bit]

i'm conflicted on the matter, as i'm very much for stricter gun control, especially with the recent influx of school shootings and such which seems to be more of a uniquely american problem. sure there is the breivik murder in norway among others, but the problem is highly reported on here in the u.s.

i mean lets get real, guns are not ever going to be banned. they're too integral to american culture, but there are too many people who fear "obama takin' muh guns away", and its absolutely ridiculous -- much like the anti-government sentiment that gun owners seem to carry as if their semi-automatic weapons are of any use against a government that has automated drone strikes and the most militarized police forces among first world countries.

arms manufacturing is part of the defense manufacturing industries, which is the largest and most highly profitable sectors in the u.s., among that is the amount of jobs that they fill with employees.

politically and historically, large defense contractors such as ratheon, boeing, northrop grumman, general electric, general dynamics, honeywell, westinghouse, dow chemical, etc, are republican in nature and are all large employers of engineers in the u.s., of which is only next to nursing in the highly in demand jobs that remain domestically as years and years of shipping jobs overseas thanks to people such as republican meg whitman. all while they prattle on about how illegals are taking jobs from americans, when it is them and their companies who willfully ship more and more jobs overseas for the bottomline.

we are so entrenched in militarisation that a vast majority of our modern advances have all come from defense spending, such as DARPA and the invention of the internet. this culture of death is much too large for any single person, or president, to halt -- and this is what makes it so uniquely american. no other empire in the world has held all seven seas in its possession, while being only being 300~ years old.

this system of how our country functions is downright despicable and morally unsound, but it is also comparably the most effective