Correct, but with no practical use, if it went away, I wouldn't be upset in the least.

 

Should other people tell you to give up booze because they think it's dangerous and they don't see any reason for you to drink it?

Who says I don't know anything about guns? Also I asked questions of resident BGP experts of what the difference in these weapons are. I wanted to see their opinion on things. Maybe I knew the answer maybe I didn't :thumb:

 

When you tell someone they are arguing from a point of ignorance that is demeaning? You don't hurt my feelings, but it will be hard to ever win anyone over by essientally saying "you don't know what you're talking about, so shut up."

 

Nevertheless, correlation is the problem here. Not much knowledge is needed to figure that out. Of the last 5 large mass shootings 4 have used a weapon in the assault weapon classifications. In the Orlando,San Bernandino, and Charleston shootings background checks missed the boat. Again I don't have to know everything about background checks to realize something just isn't right.

 

The problem is many on here don't know anything about firearms, it shows. Heck, most of the law makers don't have a clue about them.

 

BTW, no, they didn't use weapons in the assault weapon classification. That's grossly misleading and they know it.

Should other people tell you to give up booze because they think it's dangerous and they don't see any reason for you to drink it?

 

They can if they want. I won't get butt-hurt over it.

I said if you don't educate yourself on the subject. If you find that demeaning that's a you problem.

 

Your bolded statement about tells me you don't know much about guns.

 

Just because you don't call them assault weapons doesn't mean they haven't been labeled as such.

 

FTR, I have fired both the full military version and the civilian version of these weapons.

 

Unfortunately, I can't agree with sentiment of one being a jet fighter and the other a mustang. The differences aren't that great.

They can if they want. I won't get butt-hurt over it.

 

How about something you enjoy that's a constitutional right?

How about something you enjoy that's a constitutional right?

 

They can tell me to give it up all they want. Won't get butt-hurt over it.

 

And restricting access to a specific weapon is not stopping a person from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms.

Just because you don't call them assault weapons doesn't mean they haven't been labeled as such.

 

FTR, I have fired both the full military version and the civilian version of these weapons.

 

Unfortunately, I can't agree with sentiment of one being a jet fighter and the other a mustang. The differences aren't that great.

You mean mislabeled.

 

They might not be that great, but they are vastly different. If they weren't, you'd be able to buy them as easily.

They can tell me to give it up all they want. Won't get butt-hurt over it.

 

And restricting access to a specific weapon is not stopping a person from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms.

 

Doesn't mean you wouldn't fight for it.

 

Yes, it is.

Doesn't mean you wouldn't fight for it.

 

Yes, it is.

 

No, you can still bear arms.

 

No, someone telling me to give something up isn't going to cause me to bat an eye.

Just because you don't call them assault weapons doesn't mean they haven't been labeled as such.

 

FTR, I have fired both the full military version and the civilian version of these weapons.

 

Unfortunately, I can't agree with sentiment of one being a jet fighter and the other a mustang. The differences aren't that great.

I don't call them assault weapons for the same reason I don't call a baseball bat a 9 iron.

 

AR-15 = Biplane

M-16 = Fighter Jet

 

That better?

In their eyes I would list: Civil War, Shayes Rebellion, The Free State of Jones in the Confederacy.

Looking forward to the movie.

I apologize for the length of this, but I started saving my thoughts on the Second Amendment a while ago (probably the last mass shooting) and it turned into an exhaustive argument about it. I hesitate to post it, but the thread topic is too on point to not offer it up. So, uh, enjoy, if you're into masochism.

 

TL;DR - The Second Amendment was meant to prevent the new federal government from replacing the state militias with a standing army. Like the Third Amendment, it's mostly a relic of a time long since passed and doesn't have much bearing on us today.

 

The Bill of Rights were meant to clarify the limit of the federal government’s powers. Specifically, the Bill of Rights answers the question of what Congress does not have the power to do. If the Second Amendment was meant to protect a right to own firearms under any circumstances, then Congress would have little room to maneuver. However, as I’ll lay out below, the Second Amendment was meant to prevent Congress from creating a regular, standing army by getting rid of the state militias.

 

During the period of drafting and ratifying the constitution, Anti-Federalists fought against the constitution and would only agree to concede to ratify it if they were given certain explicit promises. Thus, the Bill of Rights was written largely to settle many of the debates the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had been having over the power of the federal government, particularly vis-a-vis state governments. The debates over the constitution are important for understanding where the Bill of Rights comes from.

 

We can see that the debate surrounding what would become the Second Amendment centered around the issues of a standing army and state militias. To illustrate this, we’ll first look at what the constitution had to say about armies and militias. Then, we’ll look at some of the debates Federalists and Anti-Federalists had over the constitution. Lastly, we’ll look at the debates over the actual language of the proposed amendments that became the Bill of Rights.

 

The key debate was over the issue of whether the constitution allowed for the creation of a standing army and what that would mean for the people. If you read the constitution you’ll see a few things that reflect this:

 

1) Congress may only maintain an army for a maximum of two years. Experiences with the British army made the people fearful of what a new government with an army could do. In fact, they blamed the revolution on Britain’s sending its regular army instead of aiding the militias during the French and Indian War.

 

2) Congress could maintain a navy for as long as they wanted. There were no fears of a navy becoming tyrannical since they would be at sea and not around the people. There was also a need for a navy to protect commerce, but an army would only be justified in terms of defense, which would be handled by the militia. (“They cannot bring their ships on the land”; “What occasion have we for standing armies? We fear no foe. If one should come upon us, we have a militia, which is our bulwark.”)

 

3) Congress could regulate certain aspects of the militia. Congress could raise the militias to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” And, importantly Congress has the power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”

 

The point of recapping this is to note the context within which the Federalists/Anti-Federalists debate was occurring. The constitution was written with a lot of these issues in mind, but once written the debate over ratification unfolded, so the constitution is the jumping off point for examining the debates that would lead to the Bill of Rights and ratification. On the point of standing armies, Anti-Federalists were insistent that the militia was more than capable of protecting the country and they feared the constitution gave Congress too much power over the militias. Federalists believed the provisions restricting a standing army to two years would be enough to allay fears, while Anti-Federalists believed Congress having the power to arm and call up the militias would be enough to get rid of them and create a standing army.

 

Below is an exchange during Virginia’s ratifying convention between probably the most important Anti-Federalists in George Mason and Patrick Henry and probably the most important Federalist in James Madison. Mason argues that the constitution gives too much power to Congress over the militias. Essentially, he says Congress could refuse to arm the militias, creating the justification for a standing army. Madison responds that states would be free to arm them as they liked, but that the federal government would have the resources to do it better. He further argues that states hadn’t always armed and disciplined their militias well enough to be effective (consider Shay’s Rebellion), and this is why the federal government ought to be able to do it since it would have better resources.

 

First is the transcript of George Mason’s complaint.

 

How is this compared to the British constitution? Though the king may declare war, the Parliament has the means of carrying it on. It is not so here. Congress can do both. Were it not for that check in the British government, the monarch would be a despot. When a war is necessary for the benefit of the nation, the means of carrying it on are never denied. If any unjust requisition be made on Parliament, it will be, as it ought to be, refused. The same principle ought to be observed in our government. In times of real danger, the states will have the same enthusiasm in aiding the general government, and granting its demands, which is seen in England, when the king is engaged in a war apparently for the interest of the nation. This power is necessary; but we ought to guard against danger. If ever they attempt to harass and abuse the militia, they may abolish them, and raise a standing army in their stead. There are various ways of destroying the militia. A standing army may be perpetually established in their stead. I abominate and detest the idea of a government, where there is a standing army. The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless — by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. Here is a line of division drawn between them — the state and general governments. The power over the militia is divided between them. The national government has an exclusive right to provide for arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. The state governments have the power of appointing the officers, and of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, if they should think proper to prescribe any. Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army.

 

And the transcript of James Madison’s defense of the constitution to Mason’s critique:

 

I cannot conceive that this Constitution, by giving the general government the power of arming the militia, takes it away from the state governments. The power is concurrent, and not exclusive. Have we not found, from experience, that, while the power of arming and governing the militia has been solely vested in the state legislatures, they were neglected and rendered unfit for immediate service? Every state neglected too much this most essential object. But the general government can do it more effectually. Have we not also found that the militia of one state were almost always insufficient to secure its harassed neighbor? Did all the states furnish their quotas of militia with sufficient promptitude? The assistance of one state will be of little avail to repel invasion. But the general head of the whole Union can do it with effect, if it be vested with power to use the aggregate strength of the Union. If the regulation of the militia were to be committed to the executive authority alone, there might be reason for providing restrictions. But, sir, it is the legislative authority that has this power. They must make a law for the purpose.

 

And a snippet of Patrick Henry’s retort, which is essentially an affirmation that states needed to arm their militias themselves:

 

If Congress are to arm us exclusively, the man of New Hampshire may vote for or against it, as well as the Virginian. The great distance and difference between the two places render it possible that the people of that country can know or pursue what will promote our convenience. I therefore contend that, if, Congress do not arm the militia, we ought to provide for it ourselves.

 

Federalists laid their arguments out against the perceived despotism of a standing army elsewhere. Theodore Sedgwick, during Massachusetts’ ratifying convention, said the idea of a federal army bringing about a despotism was nonsensical: “How is an army for that purpose to be obtained from the freemen of the United States? They certainly, said he, will know to what object it is to be applied. Is it possible, he asked, that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves and their brethren? or, if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands? He said, it was a deception in gentlemen to say that this power could be thus used. The honorable gentleman said, that in the Constitution every possible provision against an abuse of power was made; and if gentlemen would candidly investigate for themselves, they would find that the evils they lament cannot ensue therefrom.”*

 

Alexander Hamilton laid out his argument that a supposed tyranny through a standing army was fanciful in Federalist 28. He basically says it would be impossible to maintain a federal army large enough to make war with the states, and if there was, the states could defend themselves. He wrote:

 

We should recollect that the extent of the military force must, at all events, be regulated by the resources of the country. For a long time to come, it will not be possible to maintain a large army; and as the means of doing this increase, the population and natural strength of the community will proportionably increase. When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.

 

In sum, after the constitution was written there was a widespread debate between proponents of the constitution and skeptics. One of the issues they debated was whether Congress could create a standing army, specifically by failing to arm the state militias as a pretext. Eventually, the skeptics of the constitution would agree to concede and allow it to be ratified if they were given an explicit Bill of Rights along the lines of what one of the leading skeptics, George Mason, had written in Virginia.

 

So, we turn to how the specific language of the Bill of Rights came to be. As noted, George Mason’s “Declaration of Rights” would serve as a model and Mason himself would again help in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Here is what he wrote on this subject in Virginia’s Declaration of Rights: “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

 

When the Bill of Rights was written, Madison would again draft most of it and submit it to the House. Madison’s first proposal of what became the Second read this way: “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.”

 

The amendment was proposed to the Senate reading this way: “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.”

 

Further language was proposed that would have added this: “That standing armies, in time of peace, being dangerous to Liberty, should be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil Power. That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the Members present in both Houses, and that no soldier shall be inlisted for any longer term than the continuance of the war.”

 

The language concerning “religiously scrupulous” persons was eventually removed for fear there would be too many conscientious objectors. Elbridge Gerry argued during the debates over the language of the amendments, reported thusly, “Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head; for this reason he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect, scrupulous of bearing arms.”

 

Furthermore, Gerry “Objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which is expressed: A well-regulated militia being the best security of a free state, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read ‘a well regulated militia, trained to arms,’ in which case it would become the duty of the government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.” This again reflects the notion that skeptics of the constitution were fearful that Congress could simply starve out the militia by failing to arm them.

 

In a letter from John Randolph updating someone on the debates over the language in the Senate, he wrote “A majority of the Senate were for not allowing the militia arms & if two thirds had agreed it would have been an amendment to the Constitution. They are afraid that the Citizens will stop their full Career to Tyranny & Oppression.” Though Randolph was a major Anti-Federalist and is writing hyperbolically here, I think his extreme take highlights that this debate was over the militia and who would arm them.

 

And, of course, after all the debating and changing of the language, the final amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

Despite its awkward and archaic wording I believe in this context it’s clear the amendment was meant to preserve the militia system in the face of a new, more powerful federal government that would be tempted to create a standing army, which many at the time saw as a source of oppression. It’s also worth noting here that “well regulated” meant something along the lines of “well armed” or “disciplined,” which is a source of confusion in these debates. But, it shouldn’t be confusing at all in this context: Skeptics of the federal government wanted to ensure that the militia would remain the primary fighting force for the country and as such they would need to be well supplied and trained. As president, George Washington would make a similar point, arguing “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” This is in line with much of the above in affirming the need for a capable, armed, and trained militia, which, again, hones in on the idea that the debate was about protecting the state militias.

 

At any rate, the debates over the constitution and the creation of the Bill of Rights as it relates to this subject were universally about a fear that Congress would create a standing army and that they could do it by failing to arm and maintain the militias. I can find very little evidence the Second Amendment intended anything further. Almost all discussions around this issue concerned the state militias versus the federal government. There were some side debates over the amendment concerning conscientious objectors in the militia, but that language was expunged (and affirms the intentions of the amendment). A few state constitutions of the time included provisions protecting hunters’ rights to own arms, but this language was obviously not included nor was it discussed (that I can find) during ratification of the national constitution. Relatedly, a further protection against a standing army was offered in the Second Amendment’s cousin, the Third Amendment, which prohibited the quartering of soldiers.

 

So, what does this mean in terms of the protection the Bill of Rights meant to offer? My interpretation is it means that Congress was not allowed to monopolize the country’s defense by creating a standing army, whether by failing to arm the militia or otherwise. This was the official interpretation of the Supreme Court up until 2008. The Miller decision in 1939 held that “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” There have been various other restrictive gun laws throughout the country’s history that never garnered the level of attention they do now. From what I’ve been able to gather, the notion that the Second Amendment provides some sort of blank check for unrestricted gun ownership is a rather modern fad and probably didn’t explode into the mainstream until the 1980s. For instance, as late as the 1970s the NRA was supportive of stricter gun control and existed more as an enthusiasts organization instead of a lobby.

 

Obviously, the “Founders’ objections to a standing army ended fairly quickly. We have a professional, regular military and it hasn’t led to tyranny and despotism, which makes a lot of this discussion about standing armies foreign and moot.

 

The big question is what this mean for us today. The Supreme Court has very recently (2008 and 2010) reversed itself and held the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm (as opposed to ownership as part of service in a militia), but that’s as far as they’ve gone. I disagree with Scalia and Alito’s reasoning, but I don’t believe their opinions nor the constitution preclude Congress from regulating firearms otherwise. I don’t think guns should be banned or outlawed, but I also don’t think regulation is somehow at odds with the Second Amendment, especially when the government has a fairly compelling reason to regulate them. I think it can be done in a way that protects people’s ability to own guns while still being an effective deterrent to would-be criminals.

 

*As an aside, this is probably the only statement I can find that spoke of arms without invoking the militia and is thus commonly cited as a justification for a broader reading of the Second Amendment. Yet, Sedgwick was a Federalist arguing that the constitution should be ratified and did not need amending, reasoning that a standing army wasn’t going to threaten the states. In every other discussion of this issue it is framed as a dispute between state militias and a standing army.

No, you can still bear arms.

 

No, someone telling me to give something up isn't going to cause me to bat an eye.

When it's based on lies and looks, if banned, it's a liberty taken away. I hold my liberties dear.

 

Telling and forcing are two different things.

How about something you enjoy that's a constitutional right?

 

The problem here is that just because someone may think a gun should be banned, doesn't mean anybody loses their constitutional right to have guns. They just can't have that particular one. The Constitution doesn't say you have the right to bear AR-15's...

When it's based on lies and looks, if banned, it's a liberty taken away.

 

And that's where we disagree.