So for my own clarity then, you guys are saying if the government were to ever (won't happen btw) ban guns, you'd comply?

 

Maybe make it difficult or time-consuming for them, but you'd peacefully comply?

The logistics of the government actually coming and taking everyone's guns is absurd. They can't even accomplish simple tasks.

I mean, so little has changed since 1791, I can't imagine an intelligent person being able to have such an argument.

 

I think the argument being made is that the wording of the 2nd amendment isn't as straight forward as it initially appears.

 

"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."

 

-Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state? If so, could this be interpreted as the national guard/ state police? If we already have a national gaurd/ state police, is a militia needed?

- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," but this has been interpreted to only be applicable in the event that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. So, if a well regulated militia is not necessary, to people still have the right to keep and bear arms?

 

For what its worth, I am with you on this. I spent 6 weeks having such an argument, regarding the present day applicability of the second amendment. I can assure you that intelligent people are having this argument.

Considering gun trafficking within the US and the amount of guns that pass from lawful to illicit hands, I think some degree of registration and trail of custody tracking would help prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.

 

I realize that's an unpopular opinion, but the positives outweigh the infinitesimal likelihood the government would resort to hunting down lawful gun owners, at least in my mind.

I think the argument being made is that the wording of the 2nd amendment isn't as straight forward as it initially appears.

 

"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."

 

-Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state? If so, could this be interpreted as the national guard/ state police? If we already have a national gaurd/ state police, is a militia needed?

- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," but this has been interpreted to only be applicable in the event that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. So, if a well regulated militia is not necessary, to people still have the right to keep and bear arms?

 

For what its worth, I am with you on this. I spent 6 weeks having such an argument, regarding the present day applicability of the second amendment. I can assure you that intelligent people are having this argument.

 

I made a very long post on here not too long ago making this case. From my reading of the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the chief fear was that the new federal government would create a pretext for a standing army by gutting funding for the militia system. I don't believe it was intended to create an unfettered right to gun ownership.

I made a very long post on here not too long ago making this case. From my reading of the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the chief fear was that the new federal government would create a pretext for a standing army by gutting funding for the militia system. I don't believe it was intended to create an unfettered right to gun ownership.

 

The other spectrum of the argument, however, relies on the punctuation used throughout the constitution and the bill of rights. I believe i remember this correctly, but throughout the constitution, a comma is used synonymous with a semicolon, meaning that the two clauses are independent and do not rely on each other. Therefore meaning that, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was meant to stand on its own.

So for my own clarity then, you guys are saying if the government were to ever (won't happen btw) ban guns, you'd comply?

 

Maybe make it difficult or time-consuming for them, but you'd peacefully comply?

 

Myself probably not, wouldnt go on some warpath or anything, but if the law got changed, and they came knocking at the door, it would get interesting pretty quick. wont speak for others.

The other spectrum of the argument, however, relies on the punctuation used throughout the constitution and the bill of rights. I believe i remember this correctly, but throughout the constitution, a comma is used synonymous with a semicolon, meaning that the two clauses are independent and do not rely on each other. Therefore meaning that, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was meant to stand on its own.

 

I'm not a grammarian (obviously, just look at my posts) and certainly not an 18th century linguist, but the reason this doesn't make sense to me is that if you remove what you identify as the second, stand-alone clause, then the first stand-alone clause reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," which is either an incomplete sentence or a superfluous prelude to the second clause. Considering this was a legal and very important text it seems to me they wouldn't have intended it to be either of those things.

I made a very long post on here not too long ago making this case. From my reading of the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the chief fear was that the new federal government would create a pretext for a standing army by gutting funding for the militia system. I don't believe it was intended to create an unfettered right to gun ownership.

 

There is also an argument to be made that the Bill of Rights doesn't actually grant specific rights, but instead lists specific rights that the congress (Federal Government) shall not infringe. The founding father believed that rights were inherent with the individual, and therefore inseparable an inalienable. Obviously, by their inclusion of the 10th amendment, they realized that they couldn't include every right which needed to be protected. Which means that they thought the content of the second amendment was important enough to specifically include.

There is also an argument to be made that the Bill of Rights doesn't actually grant specific rights, but instead lists specific rights that the congress (Federal Government) shall not infringe. The founding father believed that rights were inherent with the individual, and therefore inseparable an inalienable. Obviously, by their inclusion of the 10th amendment, they realized that they couldn't include every right which needed to be protected. Which means that they thought the content of the second amendment was important enough to specifically include.

 

This is true, and of course the Ninth Amendment would be relevant here (though, no one can agree on what it means). But, I note two things: 1) my reading of the Second is that they believed a standing army was tantamount to tyranny and thus infringed on the rights of the people and 2) they were simultaneously trying to create a federal government powerful enough to be effective. Obviously there is a tension in that, so, the question we are trying to answer in these debates is what capacity does the federal government have to act on this issue without infringing on the rights of the people? I don't believe regulation constitutes infringement in this case.

This is true, and of course the Ninth Amendment would be relevant here (though, no one can agree on what it means). But, I note two things: 1) my reading of the Second is that they believed a standing army was tantamount to tyranny and thus infringed on the rights of the people and 2) they were simultaneously trying to create a federal government powerful enough to be effective. Obviously there is a tension in that, so, the question we are trying to answer in these debates is what capacity does the federal government have to act on this issue without infringing on the rights of the people? I don't believe regulation constitutes infringement in this case.

 

I don't know if i necessarily agree with the bolded point. I think the reason they call for a militia and not a federal army, is because they recognized that they were made up of individual colonies, often separated by hundreds of miles. Coordinating an army when your so spread out would be close to impossible, especially without any means of efficient communication. I think they determined that instead of having a federal army, smaller "colony armies" or militias would be much more effective.

 

And I am with you. I don't think regulation automatically constitutes infringement. We have regulations on guns today. I just think that continually added regulations, that prove ineffective, will eventually lead to guns becoming banned. Just my opinion.

I don't know if i necessarily agree with the bolded point. I think the reason they call for a militia and not a federal army, is because they recognized that they were made up of individual colonies, often separated by hundreds of miles. Coordinating an army when your so spread out would be close to impossible, especially without any means of efficient communication. I think they determined that instead of having a federal army, smaller "colony armies" or militias would be much more effective.

 

At least one of the impetuses for getting rid of the Articles of Confederation was Shay's Rebellion, where Massachusetts' militia was incapable of putting down the farmers' uprising and other states refused to aid them, while the confederation's central government had no power to compel other states to help or had any means to help on its own. This is in part why the eventual Constitution empowered Congress to call up the militias and to raise an army (but not for more than two years!). The debates over ratifying the Constitution between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists included disagreement over the appropriateness of this newly minted federal power, which the Federalists believed necessary and appropriate and the Anti-Federalists believed to be tyranny in waiting, even with the stipulation that Congress couldn't maintain an army for more than two years.

 

And I am with you. I don't think regulation automatically constitutes infringement. We have regulations on guns today. I just think that continually added regulations, that prove ineffective, will eventually lead to guns becoming banned. Just my opinion.

 

I'm certainly not in favor of regulation for the sake of regulation, but we are a long ways off from getting anywhere near an outright ban. I just think if there is something we could do that would put a dent in gun trafficking or in the population of illicit guns and we could do it with little burden on lawful gun owners then it could be a positive policy. But, that's an argument that has no wings at the moment.

very interesting discussion @Habib and @HHSHOG62

delete. I do seem to have my fair share of difficulties posting what I intended.

My question is why do the feds need to retain this information? They receive the required information to determine if a prospective buyer should be allowed to purchase a firearm. Once the answer has been determined they shouldn't have a need for this information.

 

Why... it's only for your protection, of course.

 

Furthermore, there are many, many guns that exchange hands through bartering. No records to be had for those either.

 

Most of my firearms were obtained by death... that of my father and grandfather. Ain't the government's business.

 

I sold one to one of my favorite people ever to have graced BGP. No papers, no trail. So, if he decides to whack someone and they come looking for ole spindoc, well, I hope he confesses at some point.:lol2:

 

Unfortunate for you, Doc. I have a hunch that abstracting a confession from this individual will be like pulling teeth.

very interesting discussion @Habib and @HHSHOG62

 

Definitely.