The Second Amendment

That's stupid, it would mean the 2nd Amendment didn't cover pretty much any modern weapon, even modern bows are made of composites not available in the 18th Century and are probably more dangerous than the firearms of the time.

The intent argument is clearly a well regulated militia.

It's clearly an outdated and now unjustified mandate that no longer makes any sense.

The legal rulings that said the 2nd Amendment did not affect state powers were in the late 19th Century.

That's an interesting argument, as it would rule out cannon. I don't think it's valid though.

Except the supreme Court has found that the right to own a firearm is unrelated to the right to join a militia. Also, even if the second amendment were repealed tomorrow, gun ownership would still be protected by the 10th amendment. In fact, I don't think there has every been a case that challenges the second explicitly

>The intent argument is clearly a well regulated militia.
How is that clear at all? Can you point me to any federalist papers that say as such? Why weren't the Founding Fathers cracking down on non-militia private gun ownership?

>It's clearly an outdated and now unjustified mandate that no longer makes any sense.
How the hell does that follow either from the text or from your interpretation of it?

That's not the point. The most powerful arms of the day back then doesn't mean the most powerful arms of every point in the future. Clearly you're allowed to own more advanced arms. The point is if you want to say the 2nd allowed the most powerful arms of the day back when it was written, it still allows you to own the most powerful arms of the day when it was written, and much much more. That doesn't mean you can extend the logic to all modern weapons. If you want to use back in the day as an argument, you get back in the day as a response.

>except
Stop acting like you're disagreeing with me. The statute is independent of the justification.

>In fact, I don't think there has every been a case that challenges the second explicitly
Do you even understand how amendments work? It's not through the judiciary you chucklefuck.

It clearly states the justification and intent within the text. The purpose of allowing the right to bear arms is in order to allow for citizen militias. If people can't form militias for other reasons, the point of allowing the ownership of arms is a moot point.

>The legal rulings that said the 2nd Amendment did not affect state powers were in the late 19th Century.
Isn't Cruikshank the very first 2nd amendment case that went to SCOTUS? Besides, the existence of state churches and nobody raising 1st amendment complaints over them would imply a similar attitude towards the 2nd.

It's not controlling, but it's dicta in the Heller case, IIRC. As far as I know there never has been a definitive SCOTUS ruling on what constitutes "Arms".

>That's not the point.
It IS the point. If you're saying that a protective amendment is only going to protect the most powerful tools of people who were writing the provision were familiar with, then how can you say 1st amenmdnet protections apply to things like radio, television, the internet or any new-age religion, all of which are equally outside of the founders experience as is a bazooka or a missile.

>If you want to use back in the day as an argument, you get back in the day as a response.
I can't speak for the other user, but I did not use "back in the day" as an argument, and explicitly argued why that's a stupid standard to use in the first place.

>It clearly states the justification and intent within the text. The purpose of allowing the right to bear arms is in order to allow for citizen militias. If people can't form militias for other reasons, the point of allowing the ownership of arms is a moot point.
Then why didn't the founders crack down on private gun ownership of non-citizen militias, since that was "clearly the intent"? Their actions seem to speak rather loudly that they were ok with such things.

militias are not firearms dumbass

>give me historical and legal context
youtube.com/watch?v=DB96oPafQgg

>It IS the point.
No it isn't

> If you're saying that a protective amendment is only going to protect the most powerful tools of people who were writing the provision were familiar with, then how can you say 1st amenmdnet protections apply to things like radio, television, the internet or any new-age religion, all of which are equally outside of the founders experience as is a bazooka or a missile.
All those things have new regulations that apply to them. Regulations that don't apply to letters and pen and paper and books.

>I can't speak for the other user, but I did not use "back in the day" as an argument, and explicitly argued why that's a stupid standard to use in the first place.
I'm not saying that the 2nd amendment only allows for muskets, you're missing the point entirely.

Other user said the 2nd amendment allowed for the most powerful arms of the day when it was written, and therefore it applies to the most powerful arms of today. However, the right to arms of the most powerful arms of the day when it was written haven't been infringed. You can still own them.

He failed to demonstrate that allowing for private ownership of the most powerful weapons of the day was based on that owning a cannon is acceptable, or that owning the most advanced weaponry is acceptable. The back in the day argument could be interpreted either way, since back in the day those were synonymous.

It's like cannons (a 1791 cannon) and most powerful arms (nukes) are grue (arms).

>citizen militias (not including retarded militiamen movements) don't actually exist

you are completely retarded. If you are an American male aged 17-45 you are already reserve militia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

>Then why didn't the founders crack down on private gun ownership of non-citizen militias, since that was "clearly the intent"? Their actions seem to speak rather loudly that they were ok with such things.
Because you're attempting to strawman. The intent is not to require militia membership, but to allow for the existence of militias by allowing gun ownership. Gun ownership is needed to allow for militias. If militias aren't allowed and don't exist, gun ownership is not the impediment to forming militias.

The 2nd amendment exists to protect the existence of militias. It also gives rights to non militia entities in doing so.

It is quite simply, outdated, and should be replaced. The constitution is not a static document. It can be modified. Just like the 14th (in b4 dixie reeeeeeeee) repealed shit like 3/5 (in b4 niggers shouldn't vote)

>All those things have new regulations that apply to them. Regulations that don't apply to letters and pen and paper and books.
No, they're all subject to time place and manner restrictions evenhandedly. Restrictions on things like content are and remain unconstitutional. "Outside" restrictions like obscenity and fighting words remain unprotected regardless of medium.

The only "special" restrictions you get are ones on actual use, things like regulation of frequencies for radio waves since without it, coherent communication across the medium is impossible anyway.

>Other user said the 2nd amendment allowed for the most powerful arms of the day when it was written, and therefore it applies to the most powerful arms of today.
While I'm not him, I'm pretty sure his argument is an original intent one based on a contemporary definition of "arms", which is in turn very clearly NOT simply a list of examples of arms that were contemporarily available, but rather testing against some sort of defining principle that was being used at the time.

At that point, you can apply "arms" to both 1791 weapons and present day weapons.

You know that despite the name, it's really an attempt to essentially disband state militias and absorb them into the regular federal army?

NOT

>The intent is not to require militia membership, but to allow for the existence of militias by allowing gun ownership.

But that doesn't follow. Protecting the existence of militias is only supported by allowing gun ownership of certain segments of the population (namely the sorts of people who can join the militia), and not anyone else.

>If militias aren't allowed and don't exist, gun ownership is not the impediment to forming militias.
Ok? But militias are allowed and do exist, the Militia act has never been repealed, and things like the National Guard are militias in the constitutional sense of the word. And THAT is assuming that Original Intent is the prime method for constitutional interpretation, and not simply something like "The Supreme Court's interpretations ARE what the constitution means", at which point none of these arguments matter at all.

>It is quite simply, outdated, and should be replaced.The constitution is not a static document. It can be modified.
Now we're shifting from a positive argument to a normative one; and since in practice, the actual justification for a 2017 arguments on the 2nd amendment have nothing to do with militia membership whatsoever,even if your arguments are considered correct, they're irrelevant. It HAS been modified to fit the new political reality.

>I'm pretty sure his argument is an original intent one based on a contemporary definition of "arms", which is in turn very clearly NOT simply a list of examples of arms that were contemporarily available
And it's also from a bill that's hundreds of years old that explicitly modified the constitution. It's an amendment. The constitution is supposed to be able to change with the times, albeit with great difficulty. The fact that the 2nd amendment is an amendment is proof of this. Its not sacrosanct.

>rather testing against some sort of defining principle that was being used at the time.
But that isn't proven simply because people were allowed to own cannons.

>At that point, you can apply "arms" to both 1791 weapons and present day weapons.
You're still allowed to bear arms, modern guns, and rifles. You're still allowed to bear the most powerful arms of 1791. All of these options are available to you for your right to bear arms.

It's not clear that the 2nd allows you the right to bear all arms. It allows you to bear arms. There are many arms you can bear even if nukes are restricted. You are not prevented from bearing arms, and you have lots of arms to choose from. You just can't bear nukes. You can still bear arms that aren't nukes.

>And it's also from a bill that's hundreds of years old that explicitly modified the constitution. It's an amendment. The constitution is supposed to be able to change with the times, albeit with great difficulty. The fact that the 2nd amendment is an amendment is proof of this. Its not sacrosanct.
How is any of this relevant to what the definition of "arms" is?

>But that isn't proven simply because people were allowed to own cannons.
True, and even the fact that just because something is not considered within the remit of "arms" doesn't mean that Congress HAS to ban it; nobody's going to make the argument that just because Congress doesn't levy tariffs on transportation of softwoods transported across state borders to mean that doing so isn't an example of interstate commerce which is clearly within their power to regulate.

>You're still allowed to bear arms, modern guns, and rifles.
Why are you separating them as if they're three separate things? Do you consider modern guns and rifles to not be "arms"?

>It's not clear that the 2nd allows you the right to bear all arms
It seems pretty clear to me, which is why you have these arguments about what things are in the category of "arms" in the first place.

>There are many arms you can bear even if nukes are restricted. You are not prevented from bearing arms, and you have lots of arms to choose from.
I don't have a case to cite at my fingertips, but I'm like 99% sure that this form of reasoning is explicitly rejected by the supreme court.

>But that doesn't follow. Protecting the existence of militias is only supported by allowing gun ownership of certain segments of the population (namely the sorts of people who can join the militia), and not anyone else.
Who can't join a militia? Children? Are you saying toddlers should have guns? What are you getting at? Even grandpa could join the traditional sense of a citizen militia.

>militia act
That's really just playing word games because most militia acts really are just making militias less militia like and more regular army like.

And no, the 2nd really doesn't make much sense in the modern context. The 2nd hasn't been modified. The US is just extremely averse to making constitutional amendments.

>Why are you separating them as if they're three separate things?
It was meant as a parenthetical comma.

>It seems pretty clear to me, which is why you have these arguments about what things are in the category of "arms" in the first place.
It says you have the right to bear arms. You still have the right to bear arms even if the only arms available to you are muskets.

>I don't have a case to cite at my fingertips, but I'm like 99% sure that this form of reasoning is explicitly rejected by the supreme court.
> In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

They've also done otherwise. It's really not cut and clear and open to interpretation. Which is why it should be replaced with an amendment that gives clear language not open to the whims of judicial interpretation.

I can't help but feel you're assuming I'm anti gun rights just because I'm trying to explain the flaws of relying on the 2nd to secure gun rights.

On one hand, it's an independent clause, so the SC has interpreted it as there can be no restrictions to people owning firearms, even if there's no regulated militia.

On the other hand they allow regulations like no fully automatic weapons without special licenses.

It's a hot mess.

/thread

There is no, well actually in reality limited, restriction to people owning handguns and hunting rifles, both of which are arms.

It makes logical sense if you aren't actively pushing an agenda of ban all guns and knives or I want to commute to work in a nuclear submarine because it's an arm. It's just very few people are actually happy with the logically sound, but unsatisfactory for both sides interpretation.

>logically sound

That is what our weapons laws very much are not. But it wouldn't take much to fix, really; just scrap the NFA (especially the SBR/S and AOW laws holy shit those are retarded) and make it so someone with a concealed carry license can order a gun through the mail.

>concealed
>carry
>license

it's fucking open carry that should require a goddamn license

A modern state would be retarded to allow anyone to own a strategic weapon like a nuclear missile.

it's almost like basing modern laws on 18th century reasoning isn't the smartest thing to do

>SC has interpreted it as there can be no restrictions to people owning firearms
Not really. Heller and McDonald decisions seem to be more that you can't ban whole classes of firearms - handguns, rifles, and shotguns - but there's yet to be any decisions on more specific targeted bans.

The point is that it's the restrictions to gun ownership that aren't sound, not the types of guns you can own that isn't sound.

Reminder all this shit can be overturned because all a given SC has to do is make a reasoned ruling that falls within the ambiguity gray zone for interpretation. SC doesn't have to rely on precedent if they don't want to.

Yup

How did he get supreme law, not repealable god given rights from that?

right of the people, it's an individual god-given right that government cannot infringe on, it uses the language of John Locke, at the time everyone understood what it meant. The individual derives rights from God and the state derives the right to rule from the people. If something is a God given right is it above government, and so when that's in a constitution it's basically saying "this can never be taken no matter what future politicians do"

But it doesn't say any of that. At all. He got all that from "declaratory and restrictive"

all of that is implied by "right of the people" that's just a semantics division in sentence structure

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Using the logic, that the constitution is valid only using definitions and concepts of the time it was written, niggers are no longer people again and whites are allowed to own them as property, and the internet is not subject to the 1st, 4th, nor 5th amendments

NOT

BE

"infringing" the right, would be prohibiting the people access to arms, period. Everyone being eligible to own them under rules, law and regulations is not an infringement of the second amendment.

probably because you didn't pay attention in English class

>Who can't join a militia? Children?
The old. The disabled. The weak. Most women. You know, the people who most need guns as an equalizer for self defense.

>and being pedantic about individual words is meaningless

It's pretty important when said words are part of the foundational legal text next to which all laws must conform. You don't want your constitution to be vague, because it's the final word on whether something can be legal in the first place.

INFRINGED

Why is there even still a debate honestly.

Fucking Democrats.

It means 1) that you cannot relinquish your right to bear arms as 2) it is an obligation to be prepared to defend your country but 3) Implied use outside of war acommodated to laws wich means a) criminal law and b) civil-comercial restrictions.

So both types of restrictions cannot go against point 1) and 2)

In the end is the supreme court who interpret law to decide whats the limit of the restriction. As in you have to justify each restriction you put on gun adquisition and use, not the other way arround

Not him, but Federalist 29 seems to refer to militias specifically as the basis for the Second Amendment. There's the same sentiment in 46 as well.

constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp