[Shinrei]

Some quotes of founding fathers towards the amendment, which should shed some light on the thoughts some of them had behind it:

Quote

Earlier proposals and drafts of the Amendment

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

Samuel Adams, (February 6, 1788), reported in Charles Hale, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1856), p. 86. This language was proposed in the Massachusetts convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution to be added to Article I of that document.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives. original text

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

Reworded version of the Second Amendment by the select committee on the Bill of Rights, July 28th 1789. AoC pp. 669).

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Draft version of the Second Amendment sent by the House of Representatives to the United States Senate, on August 24th, 1789. (Note: When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe).

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Revision voted on in the U.S. Senate, September 4th, 1789.

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Final version passed by the U.S. Senate; the phrase "necessary to" was added when the proposed Amendment was entered into the U.S. House journal.

John Adams:

Quote

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence.

James Madison:

Quote

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Thomas Jefferson:

Quote

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.


The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

Patrick Henry

Quote

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.


My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights or of waging war against tyrants.


[W]here and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people?

[Shinrei]

Quote

“has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,”
. This was followed up by Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), where the decision was that the second amendment

Quote
is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.

I did address your law points, HERE:

Quote

So yeah, I suppose that means that if they individual state of, say, NY wants to ban guns. I suppose they can, constitutionally if the people are so inclined. But you can't force Texas to do it too.

But I suppose it's easier to be dismissive of things that you don't agree with so you miss when someone is actually agreeing with you.

[Obdigore]

Can you show me where they said 'Disallowing the general public from having m259's and 100 round banana magazines is against our opinion?' Or are we talking about muzzle-loaders for everyone?

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 20 December 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Quote

“has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,”
. This was followed up by Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), where the decision was that the second amendment

Quote
is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.

I did address your law points, HERE:

Quote

So yeah, I suppose that means that if they individual state of, say, NY wants to ban guns. I suppose they can, constitutionally if the people are so inclined. But you can't force Texas to do it too.

But I suppose it's easier to be dismissive of things that you don't agree with so you miss when someone is actually agreeing with you.

So you agree with me and are just whining because you don't like the supreme court interpretation of the second amendment as the first part having bearing on the second?

[Morgoth]

Actually, common law considers the writings of law makers as to why a law was made to be a minor factor, if a factor at all.

In discussions of law, it is irrelevant what the authors may or may not have meant the statute to mean. What is important is how it reads, and how it has been used in later decisions.

[Shinrei]

Well, isn't interpretation of the law ultimately what a supreme court decision comes down to?

I mean, the decisions you quote are also pre-1900 (except for the sawed off shotgun one which makes me think of mafia prevention) when it was probably unthinkable to remove arms from private citizens. Back in those days having a gun on your farm or whatever was just assumed, so why would they bother calling into question the "people" wording?

[Shinrei]

Morgoth, on 20 December 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Actually, common law considers the writings of law makers as to why a law was made to be a minor factor, if a factor at all.

In discussions of law, it is irrelevant what the authors may or may not have meant the statute to mean. What is important is how it reads, and how it has been used in later decisions.

So then Scalia and friends are right because they're the supreme high poobahs.

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 20 December 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Well, isn't interpretation of the law ultimately what a supreme court decision comes down to?

I mean, the decisions you quote are also pre-1900 (except for the sawed off shotgun one which makes me think of mafia prevention) when it was probably unthinkable to remove arms from private citizens. Back in those days having a gun on your farm or whatever was just assumed, so why would they bother calling into question the "people" wording?

Yes, because the decisions from before the 2008 travesty was clear. The Second Amendment was only binding upon the Federal Government, and the Federal Government could still ban arms that had no real use for a militia.

[Morgoth]

Shinrei, on 20 December 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 20 December 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Actually, common law considers the writings of law makers as to why a law was made to be a minor factor, if a factor at all.

In discussions of law, it is irrelevant what the authors may or may not have meant the statute to mean. What is important is how it reads, and how it has been used in later decisions.

So then Scalia and friends are right because they're the supreme high poobahs.

Well, yes that's what they are. Law isn't physics where you try to find the underlying, eternal truth. When the supreme court decides how something is interpreted, that's how it is interpreted. They're not wrong because the very action of making a decision changes the law.

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 20 December 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 20 December 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Actually, common law considers the writings of law makers as to why a law was made to be a minor factor, if a factor at all.

In discussions of law, it is irrelevant what the authors may or may not have meant the statute to mean. What is important is how it reads, and how it has been used in later decisions.

So then Scalia and friends are right because they're the supreme high poobahs.

No, the Supreme Court needs to either invalidate (which they didn't do) previous decisions or rule in line with those decisions (which they also didn't do). They claimed that their decision (written by Scalia) that the second amendment is somehow binding upon states and cities (and the DOC which ironically has no representation but is still taxed, anyway...) is in line with previous decisions when it blatantly isn't.

[Shinrei]

Interesting. So those who want to ban guns should really be focusing on the previous interpretations of the amendment and lobbying STATES to do it.

Everyone always goes crying to the Fed....

[blackzoid]

Shinrei, on 20 December 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

I'll let Penn answer your last post, Obdigore.

I like those guys. Funny and incisive.
What is their solution to gun-massacres? Do they have a solution?
Probably not I'd guess.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 20 December 2012 - 02:10 PM

[QuickTidal]

Shinrei, on 20 December 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Interesting. So those who want to ban guns should really be focusing on the previous interpretations of the amendment and lobbying STATES to do it.

Everyone always goes crying to the Fed....

I hate to use internet banality, but Obi's posts make perfect sense, and your posts seem like a lot of "butthurt"...but I want my guns, but I want my guns, but I want my guns...

All your examples of what these men actually thought of the 2nd only proves that during the time they lived in (the 18th century North America, most of it undiscovered wild lands), being armed made a little more sense historically.

They were essentially living in a frontier type civilization, where protecting one's self was very high on the list of needs simply because they didn't have hundreds of years of entrenched history, law and police to enforce those laws with the populace.

America is no longer a frontier like civilization. It has police, laws and an entrenched set of social mores. You don't live in the same type of town, city or house or even civilization that your 18th century counterpart did. America is not the Old West, or the 13 Colonies...it's actually SUPPOSED to be a global superpower...and a global super power shouldn't leave its ass entrenched in ideas from a past way of living that no longer REMOTELY applies to modern times.

I'll give you an example you can relate to Shin. Imagine, if in Japan where you reside the Shogunate never was abolished...there still was a shogun and the various prefectures were still ruled over by feudal vassal's of that Shogun. As such, his Samurai walk around modern Tokyo (or wherever you reside), with a Katana and a wakizashi at their hip. You, being a foreigner, MIGHT in some way offend them...and they'd do what to you? You're telling me that if that's what they feel should be their lawful right...then that's okay? Even though Japan proved that just over a mere 100 years they could abolish the use of swords in their daily lives, and proceed to make things SAFE...without them.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 20 December 2012 - 02:50 PM

[Ulrik]

QuickTidal, on 20 December 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

America is no longer a frontier like civilization. It has police, laws and an entrenched set of social mores. You don't live in the same type of town, city or house or even civilization that your 18th century counterpart did. America is not the Old West, or the 13 Colonies...it's actually SUPPOSED to be a global superpower...and a global super power shouldn't leave its ass entrenched in ideas from a past way of living that no longer REMOTELY applies to modern times.

THIS! Im always puzzled when modern states/ people use laws made in completely different political and social situation - for different purposes. Law must evolve. Funny thing is, during communist days here, USA was seen as top of modernity...and in many ways it is. But in same way it loves such anachronisms...

One more thing. There is usually juggling with phrase "guns ban". Is this really some mainstream opinion to complete ban or its just for measures for control (licence, no customized military stuff etc)? Because its IMO huge difference.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Sorry to get away from the law discussions, it's really not my area of interest or expertise. Just three things to contribute.

1) Education. The single most powerful means of curbing gun violence, albeit one that takes time to work. Teach people proper use of guns as a requirement for getting a license. Require a license for ownership and purchase of new guns/ammo. Promote a proper respect for guns, proper storage for guns, have a curriculum component on gun deaths and relevant statistics (so folks understand the darker side of guns). Throughout the process, enforce an image of guns as tools rather than man-killers. I'm not talking about making everyone in america go write a test either. Grandfather in existing owners even...just make it so there are no exceptions for new owners. Kids will get educated, knowledge will disseminate to future generations and (probably to a lesser extent) to past generations as well. If you bring up the next generation of gun-owners with these notions in mind, I bet you'd see gun deaths more in line with Canada where we already have the education framework in place. It's a relatively minor concession for present gun owners and something I truly think would bring about effective change.

2) Ban the deadliest assault weapons. Long ammo clips too. I know I'm just echoing others on this one, but I might as well join the chorus. The only reason to own these things in modern society is "because they're neat", and the only reason they aren't banned is because owners are too childish and too much of macho idiots to part with their toys. Grow the fuck up. Look to the north even....Millions of Canadians get by just fine every day with only reduced-ammo long-guns and restricted handguns to shoot.

3) On the fortification of schools - no. Just no. It's necessary to have some security in place, but fortifying every school in the nation just makes everybody more paranoid and more likely to act out in a deranged manner at the first loud noise. That said, no security probably isn't the best course of action either. For the school in question, the shooter smashed a window to gain entry and defeat the "buzz-in" system the school was using. Simple solution - shatter proof reinforced glass on the doors in addition to a buzz-in system. It might not have stopped this fellow, but it could have slowed him down enough to get the kids out of harm's way. A further upgrade might have locked him between double doors long enough for authorities to arrive and defuse the situation (just thinking out loud on that one...not sure if that would work). Everyone always seems to go to the extremes when talking about this stuff - volunteer guards, paid security guards, gun-toting principals - when a relatively simple, unobtrusive and inexpensive modification to school security might have prevented the whole thing.

Anyways, I was really sad to hear about this news. Somehow it cuts deeper knowing the kids were so young...and in their eulogies people were saying things like "he liked trains and helping people". FFS...how can you not feel like you need to do something to prevent that kind of thing happening again? I think people pretty much universally feel the same way right now and I hope it galvanizes the american public to actually make some positive change.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 20 December 2012 - 04:37 PM

[rhulad]

This may or may not be relevant, I will let you guys decide. But apparently, according to Jay Rockefeller the shooting had nothing to do with guns or that the guy was mentally unstable and had access to an assault rifle. It was all because of violent video games. So let's do another study on them and their effects on children.

Here is the Article

Quote

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has introduced legislation that calls for an investigation into violent video games and their impact on children in the wake of last week's horrific Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

In a statement released yesterday, Rockefeller said that his legislation enlists the National Academy of Sciences to "investigate the impact of violent video games and other content on children's well-being." If the organization is given the green light, it will present its findings within 18 months to Congress, the FTC and the FCC.

"Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it," Rockefeller said. "They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better."

The impact of violent video games on youthful behaviors has been debated for years. However, the topic took center stage last week after Adam Lanza, a reportedly avid gamer, killed 20 innocent children, his mother, and school officials, in one of the worst school shootings in American history.

Rockefeller said he will call on the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to "expand their work in this area."

"Changes in technology now allow kids to access violent content on-line with less parental involvement," the senator said in a statement. "It is time for these two agencies to take a fresh look at these issues."

The Entertainment Software Association, which represents the interests of the gaming industry, issued a statement last night saying that it extends "prayers and condolences" the victims' families in Newtown, but argued that there is no link between violent video games and real-world violence.

"The search for meaningful solutions must consider the broad range of actual factors that may have contributed to this tragedy," the organization said in the statement. "Any such study needs to include the years of extensive research that has shown no connection between entertainment and real-life violence."

Independent studies on the topic have largely proven inconclusive. In some cases, the sample sizes were too small to determine whether a correlation existed. In others, the independence of the companies conducting or funding studies has been called into question.

Earlier this month, Ohio State University released a study that found that people who play violent video games for three consecutive days show an increase in aggression and hostility. That study, however, only examined 70 participants, and the researchers couldn't say for sure that extended game playing will result in violent acts.

"[This] could be compared to smoking cigarettes," Brad Bushman, the study's co-author said in a statement. "A single cigarette won't cause lung cancer, but smoking over weeks or months or years greatly increases the risk. In the same way, repeated exposure to violent video games may have a cumulative effect on aggression."

How many times are they going to beat this dead horse? It isn't violent video games or movies or music that are the issue. The issue is the ease of access which crazy people have to assault weapons and hand guns.

[Macros]

Ugh
the call of duty angle is being pushed in the media here as well.

look media

a lot of my friends are addicted to call of duty
call of duty is played ALL OVER THE FUCKING WORLD

the game is not the problem. Fuck me

[Silencer]

rhulad, on 20 December 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

This may or may not be relevant, I will let you guys decide. But apparently, according to Jay Rockefeller the shooting had nothing to do with guns or that the guy was mentally unstable and had access to an assault rifle. It was all because of violent video games. So let's do another study on them and their effects on children.

I'll tell you what. (Note, this isn't actually directed at you, rhulad, it just kinda reads that way...I know you aren't arguing for JR's idiotic stance) If you want to argue a causal link between violent behaviour and shootings, fine. But your average person knows the difference between fiction and reality and doesn't take things from one too far into the other. However, if you look at the part I've underlined in your post, you might perhaps see the bridge between games and real-world violence. Because in order for you to be affected by games sufficiently for them to turn you into a mass-murdering sociopath, there needs to be an underlying fault in your thought process. So I'm afraid that aside from the absolutely rubbish science that has been attempted on this issue so far (the tests themselves are just shockingly poorly thought out or designed, let alone things like sample sizes, trying to prove your hypothesis instead of disprove it, so on and so forth that always shows up when you look at these "research" projects), there is a distinct issue in directly attributing the man having played violent video games to him going on a school shooting.

That being said, perhaps we're being too quick to rule out a possible cause here, like the NRA trying to claim gun control laws won't help the situation? XD

[Illuyankas]

There's some evidence that video games and violence are linked in the same way that porn and sex crimes are linked, in that as access to the former increases the occurences of the latter decreases.

Also I've always enjoyed this graph.



e: Though now that I think about it, I think I like this one more:

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 21 December 2012 - 01:18 AM

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 20 December 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Interesting. So those who want to ban guns should really be focusing on the previous interpretations of the amendment and lobbying STATES to do it.

Everyone always goes crying to the Fed....

Which is why the 2008 and 2010 rulings by Scalia et al are so fucking terrible. They claim that states and cities don't have the rights to say something like 'no new handguns' or 'trigger locks are required' in their areas. He then wrote in the decision that this 'is not different from previous decisions by the supreme court' when it is blatantly different from the two previous related rulings (both AFTER the 14th Amendment was added) that said the Second Amendment is only binding upon the Federal Government and Congress.

It is some pretty horrible double-think.