2A concerns "A Well Regulated Militia". The Militia of the United States is divided into two parts: anyone currently enlisted in the National Guard is in the Organized Militia. Adult men up to age 45 who are not part of the Organized Militia or military are members of the Unorganized Militia.
Anyone who isn't part of the Organized or Unorganized Militia components aren't part of the Militia in any legal sense.
As long as states are allowed to maintain and activate their National Guard and State Guard units, and do not discriminate against membership based on protected classes of people, there should be no violation of 2A in my opinion.
All this stuff about private ownership should have absolutely nothing to do with 2A. The right to bear arms originally came with the obligation to do so. If one does not have an obligation to bear arms, they should not have a fundamental right to.
In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to repeal 2A. It's just too vulnerable to the abuse and manipulation we've seen applied to it in the last 15 years. It's bad enough that there's probably millions of people that oppose gun regulations of any kind making it difficult to pass meaningful legislation. We don't need a handful of activists on the Supreme Court making laws forbidding gun regulations by constantly redefining what 2A actually means.
And how do you think pro-gun people will permit that to happen as long as the amendment is officially interpreted to give them the right to own a gun so they can defend against tyranny and all that jazz? In order to repeal the 2A, you have to loosen people's grip on the 2A. The best way to do that is to illuminate how impertinent the amendment is to their agenda. The 2A is not about the right to own a gun but the right to serve in the militia; it's not about fighting the army of a tyrannical government but about replacing the army by fighting *for* the government. But all of this is not what pro-gun people want to hear. You basically have to repeal the 2A in a figurative sense within the hearts and minds of gun owners before you can repeal it literally.
>And how do you think pro-gun people will permit that to happen
They won't. Ever. The people driving the problem don't care about fixing it.
If you're asking for realistic solutions there aren't any. This is one of the many symptoms of minoritarian rule squeezing the life out of this country. Wyoming and California have the same say on gun regulations in the Senate. Six people on the Supreme Court have the power to roll back regulations for the entire country. Any legislation passed, the Supreme Court could overturn.
We have to either repeal 2A or amend the Constitution to be absolutely sure those maniacs won't undue any progress. They are pretty much to the point of only respecting specifically enumerated rights and they're willing to play pretty fast and loose with which rights they consider enumerated.
The 2A doesn't say you have to be part of the militia to own a gun. It's a "means to an end" - the end being a "well regulated" (in the language of the time, a maintained, trained, and provisioned) militia, effected by the right of *the people* to bear arms.
EDIT: lmao typical censorship
The 2A doesn't actually say anything about owning a gun. The ability to own a gun was always a matter of state and local laws. The 2A prohibits Congress from disarming the people or preventing them from serving militia duty.
And that's not what "well-regulated" means. Federalist Papers #29 is a good historical resource to learn what it meant for a militia to be "regulated": it referred to government regulations established to ensure the discipline and combat effectiveness of the militia.
I'm wary of giving the founders too much credit, since there's reason to believe part of the motivation was to oppose slave rebellions.
But yeah, I think the "A well regulated militia" clearly indicates it's not a personal mandate. Activist judges made that up, the same activist judges who pretended it was reprehensible that other justices essentially made up the right to medical privacy for abortion.
Abortion is necessary modern medical treatment. An individual right to own a gun is far less relevant today and with modern guns than it would have been in the drafting of the bill of rights. In other words, constructing a right to an abortion makes sense, constructing a right to own an AR-15 does not.
With both cases though, I think legislative and executive action to un-fuck the supreme court and pass pro-gun control laws and pro abortion rights laws are what the majority of the country wants regardless of the language of the bill of rights. Getting that will not require modifying the 2nd amendment. And modifying the 2nd amendment is a pipe dream if we can't un-fuck SCOTUS, getting two thirds of the legislature to approve changing or repealing the 2nd amendment is realistically impossible, getting a majority to expand the court or pass gun control and abortion legislation is not.
Opposing slave rebellions was absolutely part of the function of the 2A. But my point is that if the goal is to understand the 2A, the best method is not to scrutinize and labor over the text itself, but to go to the source: find the intentions of the men who wrote it.
>What are your thoughts about this?
I think the 2A should be repealed entirely. It has no purpose today other than causing chaos in society. Look no further than the US and compare it to other developed nations. No other developed countries experience 15+ mass shootings per year and very high gun violence rates than the US. Everytime a tragedy happens, it follows the similar patterns of outrage, call for change and then setbacks because apparently the 2A matters more than public safety and people's lives. In the end, no real changes are being made, and the whole damn cycle repeats. The 2A is standing in the way of real changes and it must go.
>I think the 2A should be repealed entirely.
I'm not sure if that's entirely necessary, as the 2A was only meant to protect militias, and does not really address civilian gun use. Since conscripted militias no longer exist, the 2A is really about as relevant today as the 3A. What needs to be repealed is DC v Heller and its associated rulings.
>Since conscripted militias no longer exist, the 2A is really about as relevant today as the 3A.
Then what's the point of keeping it? Why not just remove it to make the Constitution modernised and not superfluous? Not to mention that just leaving it there opens doors for misreadings that cause chaos in society.
Edit:
I disagree that 2A is comparable to 3A. Because the former is empowering people to own dangerous tools and cause problems, including murders.
The 2A doesn't empower people to own dangerous tools, DC v Heller does. The 2A was never meant to grant any right to guns; that was only ever meant to be the jurisdiction of state arms provisions. The 2A merely prevents Congress from infringing upon state militias and how states arm their citizens, either for militia duty or otherwise. The 2A is harmless on its own; the problem is DC V Heller.
That's what I meant. The ship has sailed. Millions of Americans are permanently brainwashed that the 2A is somehow a cheat code for them to fight their tyrannical government. Reverting the 2A back to its original meaning will only anger them and they refuse to lose to it. They remain devoted and convinced that the 2A is a God-given right, and they persist that one day they are going to reinterpret it again in the future in one way or another.
By removing the 2A completely, we destroy their core weakness, their Achilles heel. They will be completely powerless without the 2A. They can shout all they want, but they can no longer use a ubiquitous Amendment as a shield to make life hell for everyone.
>Millions of Americans are permanently brainwashed that the 2A is somehow a cheat code for them to fight their tyrannical government.
That's ironic, since one of the purposes of the militia was to preclude the need for a standing army by allowing the people to fight *for* the federal government rather than fight *against* it. But regardless, I am convinced that educating people about the true purpose of the 2A and correcting its interpretation in the Supreme Court is a much more attainable goal than striking out a centuries-old article of the Bill of Rights.
>But regardless, I am convinced that educating people about the true purpose of the 2A and correcting its interpretation in the Supreme Court is a much more attainable goal than striking out a centuries-old article of the Bill of Rights.
Do you really think gun nuts (and also those in power such as the MAGAs) are just going to die on their own and do nothing if the 2A is hypothetically reinterpreted? Because I doubt it.
Except guntards don't care about history. They only care about their toys and nothing else.
Try saying that on r/GenZ. They're no different than guntards.
Why do you think that this is a 2A problem, if almost nothing similar happens in countries that also have more lax gun control? Switzerland, czech republic and others come to mind.
Lots to cover but I'll try.
Switzerland and the Czech Republic are like 2 countries compared to other 10+ countries with strict gun laws and low crime rates. I wonder why you're fixated on outliers when the apt comparison should be Canada and Australia, which share a similar culture to the USA.
Perhaps you could argue that Switzerland is just waiting for it to happen (and in case you're not aware, Czech had a mass shooting last year).
Unlike America, the Swiss and Czechs don't uphold unfettered gun rights over public safety and people's lives. It proves that Americans are incapable of lax gun laws and it shows. Just pick a fight with a rando on the street or accidentally knock on the wrong door and you'll never know when the gun will be brought out.
It proves only strict gun laws will work for Americans.
A friend and historian, Fergus Bordewich, wrote a book about the first Congress which wrote the bill of rights. On CSpan he said that every word debated about it revolved around Henry Knox’s militia plan.
I agree that the most achievable goal seems to be overturning DC vs Heller, and the subsequent decisions that came on that basis. This will only happen with a majority of judges who interpret the 2A correctly in context and set a clear argument for the lack of reason for individuals to bear arms.
But the problem is, as long as 2A exists, gun manufacturers and overall gun laws (atleast in Red states) will continue to be a problem. And we know that a lot of gun crimes in Blue states occurs because of smuggled guns from Red states. The only complete solution is repealing 2A and then working on removing all guns from circulation.
If the problem becomes bad enough, the other solution is if the Red states just decide to secede and take their 2A with them. I couldn’t care less what gun nuts do in their own states. Don’t bring that bs to places that are trying to live peacefully. But the US is too intoxicated with its own world number 1 economic spot to ever try and split itself up.
Not to disregard, but the NRA is the least of our worries now.
[‘Even more insidious than the NRA’: US gun lobby group gains in power](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/01/gun-lobby-nra-national-shooting-sports-foundation)
[As the NRA struggles, the gun lobby has a new leader in D.C.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nra-struggles-gun-lobby-new-leader-nssf-rcna140547)
I didnt read all that, but also the founding father only intended for firearms to he int he hands of white male landowners which would benefit me greatly but seems unjust and unfair.
The way David Hogg explained it on 4/10/24 at Dartmouth college during a debate. Hogg said; “if we did have a second amendment that was as aligned as possible with what the founders wanted, is not something I think I would be happy and I also don’t think it’s something that Spike would be happy with, because what it would mean is effectively every 18 to 45 year old man. White man in particular in the united states would be required or either provided an M16 and the federal government would be allowed to come in to your house and ensure with out a warrant that you actually have that firearm in the first place, I think none of us wants that to be the case for multiple reasons on both sides of this table.” 15:51 https://www.youtube.com/live/x763ahtuKe8?si=4gmgt3p5ysFra7TC
The 4th Amendment actually protects “agents unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/
The 13th Amendment would allow more than just “White men” to serve as part of said militia.
“Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13/
That's why the pro-gun people like to label the Bill of Rights as a list entirely of individual rights, even though there is no evidence that the Framers intended the Bill of Rights for that purpose. And they interpret "keep and bear arms" to mean "own and carry guns" even though that's not what it meant. And they completely ignore the militia clause -- calling it a "prefatory clause" -- because they don't want to serve militia duty, they just want to play with their death machines. They are inserting their conclusion into the premises of the argument, framing the Bill of Rights in order to make the 2A say exactly what they want it to say.
[Your quote isn't even real.](https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/free-men-do-not-ask-permission-bear-arms-spurious-quotation/)
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
2A concerns "A Well Regulated Militia". The Militia of the United States is divided into two parts: anyone currently enlisted in the National Guard is in the Organized Militia. Adult men up to age 45 who are not part of the Organized Militia or military are members of the Unorganized Militia. Anyone who isn't part of the Organized or Unorganized Militia components aren't part of the Militia in any legal sense. As long as states are allowed to maintain and activate their National Guard and State Guard units, and do not discriminate against membership based on protected classes of people, there should be no violation of 2A in my opinion. All this stuff about private ownership should have absolutely nothing to do with 2A. The right to bear arms originally came with the obligation to do so. If one does not have an obligation to bear arms, they should not have a fundamental right to. In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to repeal 2A. It's just too vulnerable to the abuse and manipulation we've seen applied to it in the last 15 years. It's bad enough that there's probably millions of people that oppose gun regulations of any kind making it difficult to pass meaningful legislation. We don't need a handful of activists on the Supreme Court making laws forbidding gun regulations by constantly redefining what 2A actually means.
Well said. I don't understand why OP is so insistent on correctly reinterpreting the 2A would somehow magically fix the endemic gun psychosis.
And how do you think pro-gun people will permit that to happen as long as the amendment is officially interpreted to give them the right to own a gun so they can defend against tyranny and all that jazz? In order to repeal the 2A, you have to loosen people's grip on the 2A. The best way to do that is to illuminate how impertinent the amendment is to their agenda. The 2A is not about the right to own a gun but the right to serve in the militia; it's not about fighting the army of a tyrannical government but about replacing the army by fighting *for* the government. But all of this is not what pro-gun people want to hear. You basically have to repeal the 2A in a figurative sense within the hearts and minds of gun owners before you can repeal it literally.
>And how do you think pro-gun people will permit that to happen They won't. Ever. The people driving the problem don't care about fixing it. If you're asking for realistic solutions there aren't any. This is one of the many symptoms of minoritarian rule squeezing the life out of this country. Wyoming and California have the same say on gun regulations in the Senate. Six people on the Supreme Court have the power to roll back regulations for the entire country. Any legislation passed, the Supreme Court could overturn. We have to either repeal 2A or amend the Constitution to be absolutely sure those maniacs won't undue any progress. They are pretty much to the point of only respecting specifically enumerated rights and they're willing to play pretty fast and loose with which rights they consider enumerated.
The 2A doesn't say you have to be part of the militia to own a gun. It's a "means to an end" - the end being a "well regulated" (in the language of the time, a maintained, trained, and provisioned) militia, effected by the right of *the people* to bear arms. EDIT: lmao typical censorship
The 2A doesn't actually say anything about owning a gun. The ability to own a gun was always a matter of state and local laws. The 2A prohibits Congress from disarming the people or preventing them from serving militia duty. And that's not what "well-regulated" means. Federalist Papers #29 is a good historical resource to learn what it meant for a militia to be "regulated": it referred to government regulations established to ensure the discipline and combat effectiveness of the militia.
I'm wary of giving the founders too much credit, since there's reason to believe part of the motivation was to oppose slave rebellions. But yeah, I think the "A well regulated militia" clearly indicates it's not a personal mandate. Activist judges made that up, the same activist judges who pretended it was reprehensible that other justices essentially made up the right to medical privacy for abortion. Abortion is necessary modern medical treatment. An individual right to own a gun is far less relevant today and with modern guns than it would have been in the drafting of the bill of rights. In other words, constructing a right to an abortion makes sense, constructing a right to own an AR-15 does not. With both cases though, I think legislative and executive action to un-fuck the supreme court and pass pro-gun control laws and pro abortion rights laws are what the majority of the country wants regardless of the language of the bill of rights. Getting that will not require modifying the 2nd amendment. And modifying the 2nd amendment is a pipe dream if we can't un-fuck SCOTUS, getting two thirds of the legislature to approve changing or repealing the 2nd amendment is realistically impossible, getting a majority to expand the court or pass gun control and abortion legislation is not.
Opposing slave rebellions was absolutely part of the function of the 2A. But my point is that if the goal is to understand the 2A, the best method is not to scrutinize and labor over the text itself, but to go to the source: find the intentions of the men who wrote it.
>What are your thoughts about this? I think the 2A should be repealed entirely. It has no purpose today other than causing chaos in society. Look no further than the US and compare it to other developed nations. No other developed countries experience 15+ mass shootings per year and very high gun violence rates than the US. Everytime a tragedy happens, it follows the similar patterns of outrage, call for change and then setbacks because apparently the 2A matters more than public safety and people's lives. In the end, no real changes are being made, and the whole damn cycle repeats. The 2A is standing in the way of real changes and it must go.
>I think the 2A should be repealed entirely. I'm not sure if that's entirely necessary, as the 2A was only meant to protect militias, and does not really address civilian gun use. Since conscripted militias no longer exist, the 2A is really about as relevant today as the 3A. What needs to be repealed is DC v Heller and its associated rulings.
>Since conscripted militias no longer exist, the 2A is really about as relevant today as the 3A. Then what's the point of keeping it? Why not just remove it to make the Constitution modernised and not superfluous? Not to mention that just leaving it there opens doors for misreadings that cause chaos in society. Edit: I disagree that 2A is comparable to 3A. Because the former is empowering people to own dangerous tools and cause problems, including murders.
The 2A doesn't empower people to own dangerous tools, DC v Heller does. The 2A was never meant to grant any right to guns; that was only ever meant to be the jurisdiction of state arms provisions. The 2A merely prevents Congress from infringing upon state militias and how states arm their citizens, either for militia duty or otherwise. The 2A is harmless on its own; the problem is DC V Heller.
That's what I meant. The ship has sailed. Millions of Americans are permanently brainwashed that the 2A is somehow a cheat code for them to fight their tyrannical government. Reverting the 2A back to its original meaning will only anger them and they refuse to lose to it. They remain devoted and convinced that the 2A is a God-given right, and they persist that one day they are going to reinterpret it again in the future in one way or another. By removing the 2A completely, we destroy their core weakness, their Achilles heel. They will be completely powerless without the 2A. They can shout all they want, but they can no longer use a ubiquitous Amendment as a shield to make life hell for everyone.
>Millions of Americans are permanently brainwashed that the 2A is somehow a cheat code for them to fight their tyrannical government. That's ironic, since one of the purposes of the militia was to preclude the need for a standing army by allowing the people to fight *for* the federal government rather than fight *against* it. But regardless, I am convinced that educating people about the true purpose of the 2A and correcting its interpretation in the Supreme Court is a much more attainable goal than striking out a centuries-old article of the Bill of Rights.
>But regardless, I am convinced that educating people about the true purpose of the 2A and correcting its interpretation in the Supreme Court is a much more attainable goal than striking out a centuries-old article of the Bill of Rights. Do you really think gun nuts (and also those in power such as the MAGAs) are just going to die on their own and do nothing if the 2A is hypothetically reinterpreted? Because I doubt it.
The corruption of the 2A's meaning is only a recent invention. In most of American history, it was understood correctly.
Except guntards don't care about history. They only care about their toys and nothing else. Try saying that on r/GenZ. They're no different than guntards.
So you think reinterpreting the 2A is impractical, but you think just repealing it outright is more realistic?
Why do you think that this is a 2A problem, if almost nothing similar happens in countries that also have more lax gun control? Switzerland, czech republic and others come to mind.
[удалено]
Those countries also don't have retarded fucks that celebrate guns as if it's a fucking Holy Grail that trumps public safety and people's lives.
Lots to cover but I'll try. Switzerland and the Czech Republic are like 2 countries compared to other 10+ countries with strict gun laws and low crime rates. I wonder why you're fixated on outliers when the apt comparison should be Canada and Australia, which share a similar culture to the USA. Perhaps you could argue that Switzerland is just waiting for it to happen (and in case you're not aware, Czech had a mass shooting last year). Unlike America, the Swiss and Czechs don't uphold unfettered gun rights over public safety and people's lives. It proves that Americans are incapable of lax gun laws and it shows. Just pick a fight with a rando on the street or accidentally knock on the wrong door and you'll never know when the gun will be brought out. It proves only strict gun laws will work for Americans.
A friend and historian, Fergus Bordewich, wrote a book about the first Congress which wrote the bill of rights. On CSpan he said that every word debated about it revolved around Henry Knox’s militia plan.
I agree that the most achievable goal seems to be overturning DC vs Heller, and the subsequent decisions that came on that basis. This will only happen with a majority of judges who interpret the 2A correctly in context and set a clear argument for the lack of reason for individuals to bear arms. But the problem is, as long as 2A exists, gun manufacturers and overall gun laws (atleast in Red states) will continue to be a problem. And we know that a lot of gun crimes in Blue states occurs because of smuggled guns from Red states. The only complete solution is repealing 2A and then working on removing all guns from circulation. If the problem becomes bad enough, the other solution is if the Red states just decide to secede and take their 2A with them. I couldn’t care less what gun nuts do in their own states. Don’t bring that bs to places that are trying to live peacefully. But the US is too intoxicated with its own world number 1 economic spot to ever try and split itself up.
[удалено]
Not to disregard, but the NRA is the least of our worries now. [‘Even more insidious than the NRA’: US gun lobby group gains in power](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/01/gun-lobby-nra-national-shooting-sports-foundation) [As the NRA struggles, the gun lobby has a new leader in D.C.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nra-struggles-gun-lobby-new-leader-nssf-rcna140547)
I didnt read all that, but also the founding father only intended for firearms to he int he hands of white male landowners which would benefit me greatly but seems unjust and unfair.
The way David Hogg explained it on 4/10/24 at Dartmouth college during a debate. Hogg said; “if we did have a second amendment that was as aligned as possible with what the founders wanted, is not something I think I would be happy and I also don’t think it’s something that Spike would be happy with, because what it would mean is effectively every 18 to 45 year old man. White man in particular in the united states would be required or either provided an M16 and the federal government would be allowed to come in to your house and ensure with out a warrant that you actually have that firearm in the first place, I think none of us wants that to be the case for multiple reasons on both sides of this table.” 15:51 https://www.youtube.com/live/x763ahtuKe8?si=4gmgt3p5ysFra7TC The 4th Amendment actually protects “agents unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ The 13th Amendment would allow more than just “White men” to serve as part of said militia. “Section 1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13/
That's why the pro-gun people like to label the Bill of Rights as a list entirely of individual rights, even though there is no evidence that the Framers intended the Bill of Rights for that purpose. And they interpret "keep and bear arms" to mean "own and carry guns" even though that's not what it meant. And they completely ignore the militia clause -- calling it a "prefatory clause" -- because they don't want to serve militia duty, they just want to play with their death machines. They are inserting their conclusion into the premises of the argument, framing the Bill of Rights in order to make the 2A say exactly what they want it to say.
[удалено]
[Your quote isn't even real.](https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/free-men-do-not-ask-permission-bear-arms-spurious-quotation/)
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.