U.S. Bill of Rights

Yeah I've read that argument and while slave-owning states were definitely more intent on keeping their own weapons out of the hands of the federal government, it's still very clear by the wording and the position next to the 3rd amendment what the authors had in mind if you know about what was going on in the colonies prior to the Revolutionary War.

In either case, though, whether it's to provide for a national defense, or to keep slaves from revolting against their well-armed masters, the amendment's relevance has long since expired. Even if we were to keep following it to the letter, I always notice how those that yell about the "shall not be infringed" bit never seem to remember the "well regulated" part of the same sentence.

Regardless of the intention, as written it does seem to protect an individual right. The only part of it that explicitly states any right is, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part does not grant or limit any right, it merely provides the authors' reasoning for providing the right given in the second part. Yes, if one were being true to the spirit of the law and not merely the letter, one would take heed of the well regulated part, but taken absolutely literally at face value, the text does not appear to demand regulation, nor does it limit the right to militias - it merely states that, given that well-regulated militias are important, the citizens have the right to bear arms. Now personally, I am a firm believer in gun control - it works just great for us here in Australia - but regardless of ones own thoughts on the issue, its pretty hard to argue that the Second Ammendment does not specifically protect the right to own and carry a gun

Roger, we have to fear having soldiers quartered in our homes only slightly more than we have to worry about relying on local militias to defend us from the redcoats, but I could at least envision a scenario where someone might propose the first thing, as unlikely as that would be. The 2nd thing, though, will never again happen.

I'd agree with Findlay that it does seem to protect an individual right.

However, a key thing also falls on the word "infringed". What does infringement actually mean? Where's the limit? All but the most virulent 2nd amendment types admit that private citizens should not have nuclear weapons. But why then can a similar limit not be placed on rates of fire or magazine size? What about a no-cost mandatory registration and background checks would infringe on someone's rights? The latter would make straw purchases extremely difficult and likely significantly help in keeping guns out of criminals' hands...

criminals don't care if you're allowed to have nuclear-tipped ICBMS, either. Should everyone be allowed to have one then for the sake of mutually assured destruction?

Why is it that literally every argument on both sides of this particular issue are bad arguments? The "criminals don't care so might as well make it legal" argument is among the worst of the worst, though. If the problem is that criminals have illegal weapons the solution is legally arming police, confiscating the illegal arms or fining/arresting/killing those who resist, not flooding the country with so many unrestricted arms that anyone can get access to one. That's not helpful. Particularly since many law-abiding citizens will still, always, choose not to have such dangerous weapons in their homes or businesses regardless of how many criminals or non-criminals have them. Wishing for a world where everyone is strapped is both crazy and never going to happen.

Go to Chicago, Baltimore, DC, or some other similar place with the kind of gun restrictions you're advocating. What's it like there at night on the east side? Who has the guns and who doesn't? What happens when armed thugs know full well that law-abiding citizens are unarmed? And what happens when they know that everyone around them is also carrying? Can you name a place where most citizens *are* strapped, where the 2nd amendment is followed, that has high rates of gun crime?

I'm from DC. It's nice.

As for a place with lots of guns and lots of gun crime... how about the USA?

but thats not why the law was written, although it has been expanded by judicial review to include the right to protect one's family, but i would argue that that protection is necessitated by the violence caused by the proliferation of guns which the amendment's very existence has caused in the first place. the 2nd amendment should have been reined in after wwii, and we would be as safe and non-violent as germany and japan are now. Now, it is out of control. the whole world laughs at us because they think you can't go a week without witnessing a shooting. its not that bad...yet

Many more people are killed or wounded by the guns they own than are protected by them. We've got police and home security systems and even then most of the time these things aren't even necessary. That said very few people including the most liberal of Democrats are against allowing people to own certain kinds of firearms provided they are trained to use them properly, the guns are registered, well-regulated, kept in a safe place, and every measure possible is taken to keep them out of the hands of criminals, felons, and the mentally impaired. None of those people belong in the "well regulated militia."

and out of curiosity plats, where do you live exactly? I've gone 35 years living and traveling through Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, Richmond (allegedly the most dangerous suburb of San Francisco), Los Angeles, Miami and the slums of Manila, Bangkok, Addis Ababa, Cairo, Delhi and Palestine amongst other places. Never once been in a situation where the presence of a firearm would have helped or made anybody safer.

We own a gun not because we expect to use it on people, (although I was glad to have one on hand when a man being chased by deputies for a shooting chose to drive down my driveway before turning around after he saw me with a shotgun - thank goodness our neighbor had phoned to warn me about him) but we have used them several times to protect our pets and livestock from marauding coyotes and wild dogs. They are vicious when attacking sheep and pet cats and dogs, and one large wild dog was about to attack me when our neighbor saw what was happening and shot it. Living in a rural area where it can take up to an hour for deputies to arrive after an emergency call, one must do what one must to protect ourselves and our property. We are not hunters, but I also have no problem with deer hunters thinning the heavy populations to put meat in their freezers. We have had five vehicles totaled when deer ran into us. They don't look so Bambi-like when they are about to come through your windshield.

@beetboy, I disagree somewhat that personal defense is not why the law was written. Although the intent they included was specifically about the maintenance of a militia, I doubt the founding fathers could have forgotten about the forced disarmament of individuals whose homes their soldiers were being quartered in. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment is a self-fulfilling prophecy--that granting the right created a culture in which it is more important, but you cannot simply change that culture by legally revoking the right, as criminals aren't generally restrained by the law.

@kal, I completely agree, guns do more harm than good. However, statistics like that are less than comforting when you're accosted by someone with a gun, and you don't have a way to defend yourself. I am all for better regulation of firearms, but not to the extent it puts me at the mercy of a criminal (been there, done that, never again. For your curiosity, that was in Hong Kong, a 'gun-free' state).

(ran out of space). The two instances I alluded to in my earlier comments occurred when I lived in suburban areas of Houston and Los Angeles. I spent years in both areas, and excepting these events, never felt in any danger in those neighborhoods. The only place I've felt compelled to carry at all times was in Luanda.

I think if I lived out in the wilderness somewhere I may feel a little bit differently. But I don't know. I never felt like I needed a gun when I was camping. I can see it as a tool (of arguable necessity) for ranching or farming. First and only time I've shot a gun myself was at a firing range in Thailand last year.

I've lived almost 63 years and not once have I ever needed a gun. and no, I am not in the backwoods. If you want to keep a firearm, fine and dandy. But don't try to cram one down my throat, as in these right-wing nut job legislators who wants to require everyone of legal age to own one. These idiots who want to strut around with open carry are doing nothing but showing off, like my nephew. He comes into a church fellowship hall at our family reunion wearing his just because he can. No, we don't have a wild gathering, no drinking, etc.

Second all of that @kalbahamut

Ridiculous NRA propaganda. When was the last time a gun-toting mob stormed Congress or the White House and demanded that the crooks there stop disrespecting the Constitution for their own personal gain? I see so many gun nuts fully behind would-be-dictator Trump's dismantling of democracy, liberty, and a free press lately that I *really* don't think we can depend upon these guys to protect anybody's freedom, even their own.

Yes, apparently in the UK we have no rights then. What nonsense.

mate, without the right to bear arms we still have the right to bear legs!

Saudis don't have the right to bare legs. I tried walking in to the mall wearing shorts and security would just point at my legs and say "family!"

And now that we have had a mob, in recent memory, invade the Capitol, in service of tyranny not opposed to it, that's all the more reason to say that this argument makes no sense. The people with guns are more a direct threat to liberty than a protection against tyranny.

All you need to be able to predict the future is to open your eyes and pay attention to what's happening.

easier just to let you die from shotgunning bacon grease down your gullet.

My not owning a gun won't stop someone else from using their gun to kill somebody. In this case, your right to own a firearm could very well affect me and my right to be alive. Ironically those same people who love guns also seem immune to this argument you just made when it comes to something that actually *doesn't* affect them, like gay marriage. Go figure.

by the way you can breathe and type at the same time. If it makes you blue in the face you might be doing it wrong.

I doubt you even know what a liberal is.

Gun nuts always think they sound so badass, but, I'm sorry, it's so pathetic. "Come try to take our guns, I dare you." Okay, guy. Yippee-ki-yay.

Not so. The majority (2/3) of gun related deaths in the US are suicides which is not illegal. Hey, sometimes we all get sad and having the means to kill ourselves readily to hand...

Just out of curiosity, which news source do you think is the least biased and which do you believe is the most biased

The Onion is the only purely unbiased news source

Looking it up, tbolt, your position is doubtful at best. Regulated probably just means regulated. Also, starting a post with "educate yourself" will literally never help your argument.

No, tbolt is right. In 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified, "well-regulated" did not have the definition it has today of "controlled by the government." The original definition of "regulated," one still in use today, by the way, was "adjusted for accurate and proper functioning." In other words, the amendment is saying that a properly functioning militia (citizens with guns) is necessary to secure freedom. People with no right to own weapons may think they're free, but that's only because things are going well. When things go sideways, they will see just how much authority their government has, and how powerless they are.

that is why, as citizens, it is our duty to monitor and manage the government. Vote for people who will defend individual freedoms rather than those who want a more expansive and more powerful government.

milk, you're totally right. The weapons of a citizen to defend himself from the government aren't guns. These are just a very last resort.

On this issue, most people *do* think like me. You're just unaware of it. On other things, yeah, I guess it would be horrible if everyone was more open, tolerant, trusted in science, helped their fellow man, rejected racism and bigotry, respected facts, valued personal freedoms so long as they didn't harm anyone, minded their own business when it came to what you were doing in your bedroom, didn't fight pointles wars over nothing, stopped killing each other over disagreements about god, respected and gave full rights to women, etc, those are a handful of things that would happen if most people thought like me. What a nightmare.

actually, about 50% of the people in the US think like @kal, and the other half dont

@Cheesey, the difference between guns and cars is that cars have a genuine purpose other than killing people. The main purpose of guns is self-defence, but they demonstrably make people less safe. There are some exceptions to this, which is why some people (farmers, for example) should probably be allowed to have guns, provided they get a license and only use ones that couldn't kill a human. @Bernard, it would certainly reduce accidental deaths and suicide. Also it would allow police to take the guns away from the criminals. The main difference between drugs and guns is that guns aren't addictive.

They don't fear the people. They do do whatever they want. When the average gun-toting 2nd amendment fan is foolish enough to believe the propaganda on Fox News, they've already won. They don't need violence to oppress him. and if they did, nobody is afraid of the Texas minutemen. 1776 was a long time ago. Times have changed. The NRA lies to you to increase their profits.

When was the last time the government came into your house with a 12 gauge? I certainly have never been in that situation

You can acquire them in some states, but they are expensive and there are a lot of fees and paperwork with the ATF

Well, I'm pretty sure that owning a nuclear bomb really would not be for self-defense, but more for terrorism. There should definitely be a line drawn there.

Those Mongols were something else, man

Because the USA has been invaded so many times in the last 200 years.

home invasions =/= invasions on the scale of country vs country. And according to the nightly news, we had 7 in the last 3 days.

Okay I missed the "home" part. Allow me to recalibrate my sarcasm. Yes... 7 homes out of 125 million in the USA. Clearly an urgent and pressing matter and good reason to flood the entire country with guns. Meanwhile, an average of about 3 people per day end up killing themselves or someone else in their home from accidental discharge or "undetermined intent." And a much larger number are killed by intentional suicide or homicide through firearms.

That was in the city I live alone...c'mon man.

the numbers still are not in your favor.

How do you make the strikethrough?

< strike > text < / strike > (Without spaces) produces text

cool

I didn't say it wasn't part of the Constitution - it absolutely is. What I was inferring, was that an "Amendment" indicates that change has happened in the past, and maybe could do so again, this time for the better? The 2nd Amendment has the honour/honor of being the most amended Amendment - with over 1,000 changes to date. Inserting the tiny word 'not' would make America a safer place, though I concede it might take some time.

Then clearly, it's better gun control that is required. The death toll from gunfire in the USA between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. According to Politifact, there were about 1.4 million firearm deaths in that period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq.

Oh, and don't forget the ca. 22,000 gun suicides which occur each year but don't get captured in the gun violence statistics. How many of those wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a gun readily available (and usually legal) in the house? Suicides represent 2/3 of all gun related deaths in the US, predominantly white males and not crime related. Almost no deaths due to legal firearms? Think on my friend.

The Constitution doesn't give the federal government permission to have a federal department of education, does it? Doesn't that mean it should be state only?

You know what I find hilarious? If I try to type “tbolt” on my phone, it autocorrects to “troll.”

tbolt, if you stopped watching the ridiculous propaganda on Fox maybe you'd realize that virtually zero politicians in Washington are trying to take your sad phallus enhancers away from you. So if that really is my position, as you assert that it is, then what I said is correct.

Tbolt knows the libs are up to no good because Fox News tells him so. And he knows Fox News tells the truth because it tells him the libs are up to no good. I'm not too handy with a gun, but I think it's pretty easy to shoot holes in that logic.

No, we aren't brainwashed by CNN, the Times, etc. 90% of sources (all of them but yours, pretty much) are saying the same thing...because it's true. They're only "liberal" because they don't promote the unreality that Trumpkins need to believe to rationalize their support for an incompetent monster. The overwhelming majority of reporters, scientists, researchers, professors, lawyers, economists, etc. agree on things, and the mainstream media reports those things. The far right just doesn't want to hear it, so they retreat to their corner and do the whole "well the other side does it too!" thing. It's nonsense. If the media is always reporting that Ohio State has a better football program than Indiana, it's not because there's an anti-Indiana bias. It's because Ohio State is in fact better at football. The media is likewise always negative about Trump because he is incompetent and immoral. No one is out to get you. We just want you to act like a grownup.

I'll add the qualifier that there is definitely media with an unabashed and unwarranted liberal slant (MSNBC and the Huffington Post, for example). Most liberals know that, and I honestly know like two liberals that even watch MSNBC. But to lump the Times, the Washington Post, and every other major media outlet into that group just because they don't flatter Trump is childish and ridiculous. Those are esteemed news organizations that work really hard and put out researched, vetted, and analytical content that deserves respect.

The media is definitely powerful. They convinced near 40% of the country that Donald Trump, the most guilty man in history, is the victim of a witch hunt. They've also helped convince gun nuts that someone is coming after their stupid guns when nobody really is. The media includes Twitter, Facebook, Fox News, the Internet, and talk radio, by the way.

They also encourage you to think that all conservatives are racist nazis, and that senile joe was a good pick

not even worth responding to

Just my two cents on this.

You guys pay too much attention to the media. Step away from it for a little. Look at the sky or the trees or something. The media, I don't care which news source you watch, just wants to divide you. They portray anyone they don't like as being the wrong or the evil. And the aftermath of that is evident right here in this comment thread. You guys are totally right when you say that the media is powerful. It's probably the most powerful entity in the USA. But that's how they operate, divide, divide, divide. All of this Democrat vs Republican nonsense is just creating more hatred, more disrespect, and more chaos. They say they just want the sides to get along, but that's not what they put out in their articles. Don't hover over the news every second of your lives. I'm not saying don't look at the news ever, but just check in on it every now and then. And especially stay away from politics.

The media is a monster.

Congress can pass any laws they want to. Whether or not those laws are constitutional isn't decided until after the law is passed.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land though. Any state law has to meet the minimum standards of the federal Constitution. I imagine each state (or most states) has an emergency executive power akin to the president's that permits the governor broad authority, but it's also worth noting that that there is no ban on public assembly. If 100 people want to stand in the park together, no one can stop them. The ordered closures of certain businesses is not broad enough to constitute a ban on public assembly. You can still assemble. You just have to do it elsewhere. The First Amendment has a broad body of case law regarding time, place, and manner restrictions with regards to free speech. It'd be easy to transfer the reasoning to peaceable assembly. (And also Kal is right that Congress can pass any law and then it's up to the Supreme Court to strike it down).

Yes, but in practice, the first safeguard is Congress's own judgment of what is constitutional. If it deems a proposed law constitutional, then it's up to the president to veto it or the Court to strike it down. Whether that is in the Constitution or not, that's the system we have, so kal is right that in the first instance, Congress can pass any law it wants. Whether another branch stops the law from taking effect is a different question.

I don't know about "any law," but yes, the executive emergency power is very broad.

Well clearly Trump hasn't read it.

Biden's been involved in politics since the 1970s, he's had plenty of time to have read it at least once, though he may not have looked at it recently. I wouldn't be surprised if I learned that Trump may not have actually read it at all.

You've been replying to comments on this quiz for 7 years now...you've got some dedication I'll give you that.

I just like coming to the site.

@kalbahamut same here