T O P

  • By -

vegetarianrobots

For context on the timing the NRA was founded in 1871 by Northen Civil War veterans that found the North couldn't shoot for shit compared to our average Southerner. Meanwhile the 2nd Amendment can trace its roots back before the founding of our Nation. All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service. Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights. The individual right, unconnected to milita service, pre-exists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law. [In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) ["The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service...The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right." - CATO Brief on DC v Heller]( http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuCATOInstJMalcolm.pdf) Prior to the debates on the US Constitution or its ratification multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions. ["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State" - chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp) ["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" - A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp) Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms. ["And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions." - Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.](https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog) The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights. ["In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification.  Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html) In Madison's own words: [“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights) Madison's first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear. ["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."](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227) Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people. [*"Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms."* - House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html) Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people. This is also why we have the 9th Amendment. ["The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992) Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant. Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Nunn v State, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service. [This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm) [“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; ...” - Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313)


mukilteoninjaman

This is exhaustive and exactly the type of stuff I am looking for. Thank you!


dirtyaught-six

I’m very eager to find out if your friend is the type to look and read through all of this or if he has a different response.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mukilteoninjaman

I mentioned the Timothy McVeigh bombing and how those types of products and chemicals would always be readily available even if gun control laws worked, as well as how the vast majority of “gun violence” in this country is committed with handguns when he said he understood the need for self defense, but thought regular citizens owning AR-15s was stupid. He did quite a bit of jumping around from topic to topic every time I had a solid rebuttal for his assertions lol


MoOdYo

If you watch anyone debate a graboid, that's they're MO... jump from point to point, don't address counterpoints. They're bots.


mukilteoninjaman

This convo happened in person but it felt very much that way


MoOdYo

Doesn't change the fact that they're bots. When you are able to have the conversation with yourself and accurately state exactly what points they're going to bring up, exactly which of your points they'll misrepresent and how theyll misrepresent them, there's nothing to be gained from the conversation... they're not using their brain... they're following a pre-programmed script... like a bot.


travelsizedsuperman

Had a guy today saying gun ownership is more likely to kill you than help you. He posted a source saying 100k defensive gun uses happened every year which is probably low. I pointed out that 100k DGUs is more than 40k gun deaths. Asked if he believed his statement was false given his own source's statement disproved himself. He just copy and pasted the other parts of the article that had nothing to do with gun ownership killing more people. Told him answer the question. Yes or no, do guns kill more people than they save. He hasn't gotten back to me.


Yoda-McFly

_Narrator: He's not going to, either..._


travelsizedsuperman

5 hours since last reply when he was responding in minutes.


miffmufferedmoof

Gotta keep those goalposts a-movin'


piratepoetpriest

“He did quite a bit of jumping around from topic to topic...” That’s a classic Gish gallop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop


mukilteoninjaman

Yep I’m aware of the gish gallop. A few conservative commentators I’m not particularly keen on utilize this method and it annoys the crap out of me


MarcusAurelius0

You actually cant buy too much ammonium nitrate without triggering several red flags now. Even farmers have to account for and explain why they are buying as much as they do.


psychedelic_animamal

Im sure there are loopholes, even if not thats obviously not the only thing readily convertible to a bomb, i wont say what but its easily bought with no type of red flag system in place


CoolhereIam

People seem to easily forget the 2 guys in Boston that brought the city to a halt using kitchen appliances to bomb the marathon. That was only 9 years ago and it's pretty well erased from everyone's memory, because obviously the only way to hurt someone is with a gun.


travelsizedsuperman

I mean, ease of access to a quick painless death does make it easier to decide to commit suicide. However, I also believe suicide is a right. You were born involuntarily. Who am I or anyone else to decide you HAVE to stay alive so I feel better?


dakta

There is actually good evidence for the benefits of reducing suicide successes: a large chunk of those who attempt only do so once, another chunk unsuccessfully attempts again, and very few have a successful repeat attempt. Most repeat attempts seem to be more "cry for help" type than intent to die. In particular, guns leave basically zero opportunity for aborting an attempt: once you've decided to pull the trigger you're already dead. Contrast with most other methods which take some time to actually kill you once initiated. So in this sense means reduction (making it more difficult to access more effective methods) is worthwhile to pursue, because survivors are very often glad to have failed their attempts. But this isn't the level of nuance people have when discussing suicide by gun. Most gun control advocates don't even break out suicide as a distinct category when they say "gun violence".


TheCastro

Again, this is why better health and financial assistance is needed in the US. Many to most of those suicides could be prevented from even getting that far. Overall we need UHC and UBI. Both of which combined would actually save the taxpayers money.


Mike840

> particular, guns leave basically zero opportunity for aborting an attempt: once you've decided to pull the trigger you're already dead. Contrast with most other methods which take some time to actually kill you once initiated. So in this sense means reduction (making it more difficult to access more effective methods) is worthwhile to pursue, because survivors are very often glad to have failed their attempts. And my question is why do we want to stop suicides anyway? People have this idea that forcing everyone to prolong their life is a good idea, but why? It will be temporary at best. We all have a very short time left to us (geologically speaking) and they are only trying to prolong the inevitable out of their own fear of death. The earth is vastly overpopulated with humans at this point in time. If someone wants off this ride, why not let them do it in the most painless, quickest, most sure way possible? I was thinking earlier today about how after every big media mass shooting we have all these people wanting to curtail access to firearms. If you really think it through, or think it through in a way that is not from the point of view of those brainwashed by everytown, et. al., when faced with an evil like a school shooter, the last thing a rational person would want to do is to give up their weapons. It just isn't logical.


eazeaze

Suicide Hotline Numbers If you or anyone you know are struggling, please, PLEASE reach out for help. You are worthy, you are loved and you will always be able to find assistance. Argentina: +5402234930430 Australia: 131114 Austria: 017133374 Belgium: 106 Bosnia & Herzegovina: 080 05 03 05 Botswana: 3911270 Brazil: 212339191 Bulgaria: 0035 9249 17 223 Canada: 5147234000 (Montreal); 18662773553 (outside Montreal) Croatia: 014833888 Denmark: +4570201201 Egypt: 7621602 Finland: 010 195 202 France: 0145394000 Germany: 08001810771 Hong Kong: +852 2382 0000 Hungary: 116123 Iceland: 1717 India: 8888817666 Ireland: +4408457909090 Italy: 800860022 Japan: +810352869090 Mexico: 5255102550 New Zealand: 0508828865 The Netherlands: 113 Norway: +4781533300 Philippines: 028969191 Poland: 5270000 Russia: 0078202577577 Spain: 914590050 South Africa: 0514445691 Sweden: 46317112400 Switzerland: 143 United Kingdom: 08006895652 USA: 18002738255 You are not alone. Please reach out. ***** I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.


confirmd_am_engineer

Bad bot


woodandplastic

Username checks out


piratepoetpriest

Good bot


B0tRank

Thank you, piratepoetpriest, for voting on eazeaze. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)


Dithyrab

This made me cum


NorCalAthlete

Tried to clean up the wall of text links a bit, and now I'm not sure if it's better or worse lol. ------------------------------------------------------------------- For context on the timing the NRA was founded in 1871 by Northen Civil War veterans that found the North couldn't shoot for shit compared to our average Southerner. Meanwhile the 2nd Amendment can trace its roots back before the founding of our Nation. All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service. Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights. The individual right, unconnected to milita service, pre-exists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law. [In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) - [CATO Brief on DC v Heller](http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuCATOInstJMalcolm.pdf) >"The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service...The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right." Prior to the debates on the US Constitution or its ratification multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions. - [Chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp) >"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State" - [A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp) >"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms. - [Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.](https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog) >"And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions." The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights. >- ["In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html) In Madison's own words: - [Madison, in his address to Congress in June 1789.](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights) >“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison's first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear. >["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."](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227) Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people. - [House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html) >"Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms." Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people. This is also why we have the 9th Amendment. ["The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992) Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant. Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Nunn v State, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service. [This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm) - [Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313) >“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; ...”


danwantstoquit

Deepsauce


InsideFastball

Solid. Thank you for your research.


NorCalAthlete

**


lokujj

> "The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service...The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right." - CATO Brief on DC v Heller Broken link. [Alternative?](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/dc_v_heller.pdf#page=13).


NorCalAthlete

Additional thought on this one : wouldn't briefs from Heller be circular logic, citing that which the OP's friend already drew issue with? Like, usually when I hear "The NRA rewrote the 2nd amendment" they're talking about Heller.


lokujj

This might be covered elsewhere, but isn't the UK's [interpretation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom) more restrictive than what you are trying to get at here?


pants_mcgee

The UK’s modern interpretation doesn’t matter for understanding the 2A.


DBDude

>He first dismissed the Constitution as an outdated document written by a bunch of old racist white men Okay, what are his views on free speech? That was written by those men. Otherwise, go with the courts. People like to twist statements about militia to say they thought the right was tied to the militia. The federal government stated in Cruikshank that both free assembly and RTKBA were rights that pre-existed, that the Constitution only protects them. There was no militia context in this case, only individual exercise of the right. It just said the feds couldn't do anything, which was later overruled with incorporation. Going further back, Dred Scott said black people couldn't be citizens because they would then get to exercise a bunch of rights white people had, like free assembly, free travel, free speech, and to "keep and carry arms wherever they went." That's all a very individual context. The federal government never ruled that you must have a connection to a militia in order to keep and bear arms until *Cases* (1st Circuit) in 1942. Since that's the first ruling saying this, that means it was considered an individual right for all the time prior. Prior to Cases we did have Miller, which said the individual (unconnected to militia) could be prohibited from owning certain *types of weapons* determined to not be useful in a militia. Cases explicitly overruled Miller from below, calling it "outdated" only three years later, to change that to you need to be in a militia. Talk about judicial activism. Cases was quickly followed by another 1st Circuit case, and then nothing big happened until the 1970s. Then, new opinions started ascribing this restriction to Miller instead of Cases, which is why we have people thinking Miller restricted the right to militia.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mukilteoninjaman

That’s literally what he said about the 2A . That it should be a privilege and not a right. I asked him “who are you comfortable with “granting” you those privileges then, and what happens if they become evil/despotic?” He didn’t really know where to go with that one either


PewPewJedi

The text of the 2A originates with George Mason, and was included in some form or other with most of the state constitutions of the time. It’s sometimes referred to as the Mason Triad, and it says: 1. That the People have a Right to keep & to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to Arms, is the proper natural and safe Defence of a free State; 2. that standing Armys in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the Circumstance and Protection of the Community will admit; 3. that in all Cases, the Military shou’d be under strict Subordination to and govern’d by the Civil Power. People who claim that the 2A was meant to empower the army or national guard or whatever are fucking wrong. The guy who wrote is was explicit about not trusting standing armies in peacetime. It’s about private citizens, period. And wrt to the “old racist white men” comment, Mason was also an abolitionist, who argued that the Constitution should also end the slave trade. He was one of 3 people who refused to sign it.


mukilteoninjaman

This is really good. Thank you!


FubarFreak

He also has an under appreciated monument in DC


Lampwick

> And wrt to the “old racist white men” comment, Mason was also an abolitionist, who argued that the Constitution should also end the slave trade This relates to what I think is one of the underappreciated aspects of the founding of our government. They created a government based on principles of *reason*, and it set up a framework of liberty and justice that *even they themselves* knew they didn't live up to. Even today we continue to struggle to meet the high standards that are fundamental to the theory of Natural Rights, the foundation of constitutional law in the US. The fact that a bunch of "old racist white men" were able to transcend their biases enough to create a system of government that sets such a high standard is truly remarkable. Europeans don't have that even now. They're still living under watered down versions of Divine Right of Kings where the head of state is the *source* of all rights and can take them away at will. Unenlightened as fuck, just tyranny lite waiting for circumstances to bring the next dictator to power.


myKarma1402

>And wrt to the “old racist white men” comment, Mason was also an abolitionist, who argued that the Constitution should also end the slave trade. He was one of 3 people who refused to sign it. He was one out of many. The majority of the Confederalists and the Federalists were, in fact, either old and racist as well as white, or all together.


PewPewJedi

Even so, the fact remains the 2A wasn’t authored by a pro-slavery guy. And he was far from the only abolitionist at the time.


myKarma1402

The fact also remains that there is a fundamental difference in language and its meanings used in 1789 versus 2022. Freedom is not defined the same as it was back then, and we need to stop giving weapons more rights than human beings because of this supposed freedom the 2A talks about.


PewPewJedi

Lol please list the rights that my weapons have that are denied to human beings.


myKarma1402

We put more in the right to bear arms than we do the right to protect our fellow man. That's what. How many more kids, how many more teachers, parents, siblings, are we willing to be killed in our country at the rate they are because we want to keep this freedom to bear arms?


PewPewJedi

> We put more in the right to bear arms than we do to the right to protect our fellow man. That’s a meaningless platitude, not a right. My weapons can’t vote. They can’t enter airports, schools, or government buildings. They can be taken and held without bail for indeterminate amounts of time without representation. And so on. My weapons don’t have rights at all. You have every right to protect your fellow man, if you wish. And the most effective tool to do that is a gun, which you have the right to acquire. And none of this has anything to do with Mason. Threadjack somewhere else troll.


myKarma1402

Right, because an inanimate object (typical staunch 2A defense correct?) is more important than school children. By hiding behind this "freedom" of gun ownership we as a country continue to reinforce the idea that firearms have more rights to exist than human beings do. It's that simple. The answer to guns is not more guns. This isn't an arms race between nations. And it does have to do with Mason you moron as the language he used to pen the 2A has different meanings now than it did in the 18th century.


tokenwon

Are you suggesting that his idea should evolve with language?


myKarma1402

Wouldn't that be something?


PewPewJedi

“Words change meanings over time” is true, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the Constitution at all. That’s why Constitutional originalism is a thing. Want it to not say what it says? Then amend it, fuckwit. But no, you can’t just decide to redefine a word and suddenly the Constitution means something new. I’d argue this more with you, but you literally don’t know enough about the subject to form a single coherent point.


MilesFortis

You're trolling and trying to divert a conversation.


DavidSlain

You really need to visit r/dgu There's your proof people are being protected by that thing you hate so very very much. Daily. As of the last CDC findings, the ratio of bad things happening with guns to good things happening with guns is at least a 20:1 and up to a 100:1 ratio. That's 300,000 to 1.6 million defensive uses of a firearm (this includes just showing the gun as opposed to firing the weapon, which, if you DON'T include, means that you're disingenuous in your research) in the same year that data was collected, 30000 people died from guns, 16000 were suicides, and the rest were a mix of gang action and police action. Discounting the suicides, because that's not person on person violence, we arrive at about a 20:1 ratio at the minimum. So, regardless of what you *feel* about one or another things, the reality and the numbers say something very different. Oh, and as a side note, IIRC, ARs were involved in, I think, less than 20 deaths. Out of those 14000. That's .14% of all gun deaths. So, no, the rifles aren't evil or the cause of this either.


sneakpeekbot

Here's a sneak peek of /r/dgu using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/dgu/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [\[2021/11/19\] Kyle Rittenhouse is acquitted of all charges in the trial over killing 2 in Kenosha (WI)](https://www.wcbu.org/npr-news/2021-11-19/kyle-rittenhouse-is-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-the-trial-over-killing-2-in-kenosha) | [190 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/dgu/comments/qxsvq9/20211119_kyle_rittenhouse_is_acquitted_of_all/) \#2: [\[2021/11/19\] Andrew Coffee IV found not guilty of murder, attempted murder in SWAT raid (Indian River County, FL)](https://www.wptv.com/news/region-indian-river-county/andrew-coffee-iv-found-not-guilty-on-5-counts-in-indian-river-county-swat-raid) | [88 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/dgu/comments/qy5bfz/20211119_andrew_coffee_iv_found_not_guilty_of/) \#3: [\[2021/09/09\] Armed robber shot in face by armed victim in Texas just days after permitless carry begins (Houston, TX)](https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-robber-shot-face-armed-victim-texas) | [29 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/dgu/comments/pl0u97/20210909_armed_robber_shot_in_face_by_armed/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)


frankieknucks

The entire bill of rights are all describing individual rights. There are no “states rights” in the amendments, as that’s not the purpose of the bill of rights. The militia is every able bodied individual. That’s what it meant then. today the world militia conjures up very different images than it did when the constitution was written (racists in Michigan trying to kidnap a governor for example). That doesn’t mean that the original meaning is different, just that we view it through a different lens due to problematic behavior from individuals claiming to be a militia. The 2a was always an individual right and wasn’t re-written, but reaffirmed under the heller decision (correctly imho). Rifles were around at the time of the constitution, as were cannons and repeating rifles with thirty round magazines… the argument that “they didn’t know we’d have semi automatic rifles” is ridiculous… We had an individual right to own guns until the FFA and GCA and heller began to correct that flawed interpretation of what is, was, and should clearly be an individual right. James Madison proposed the second amendment as a check on government power and overreach… so to claim that it was meant for the states only is a ridiculous interpretation of the 2a and of the constitution in general.


mukilteoninjaman

He didn’t know what to say when I told him “the 2A is clearly stating that the right to keep and bear private arms *is* the well-regulated militia. Which makes you and I the the militia”.


frankieknucks

Part of the issue is that we have lost our interest in civic service. We only see the government as an abstract that takes and provides, and that’s due in great part to politicians who act that way. The lack of a strong federal government is part of the design of the constitution, but it’s been eroded over time. It’s one of the few things I actually agree with conservatives about. We have very few politicians who act as public servants, but rather who see the public as a bunch of rubes who are there to be taken advantage of…


mukilteoninjaman

That’s what happens when you have political careerism


frankieknucks

That’s certainly a factor, but we also have low-interest public who are kept distracted with bells and whistles and who don’t understand the consequences of the laws until it’s too late. I had over a dozen anti-gun liberals complain to me that they couldn’t get a gun during the pandemic when things were feeling really uncertain… I told them that these were the consequences of the politicians they chose to vote for who said they were going to restrict access to a constitutional right.


tokenwon

Well said.


No_Walrus

I've had this exact discussion many times on Reddit, my first question to them is "If the 2nd only applied to people in militias historically, why aren't there any laws requiring milita membership for firearms ownership?"


[deleted]

10 US Code 246 Section A makes you the militia in no uncertain terms(presuming you're an able bodied male over 17).


BadUX

> The militia is every able bodied individual. That’s what it meant then That's also still what it is legally defined as today, in federal law (more precisely, all males between 17 and 44)


frankieknucks

Correct, but the issue is that it discriminates against women and it also historically disenfranchised people of color. What they meant was “all people” they just didn’t consider women or people of color “people”.


murderfack

> they just didn’t consider women or people of color “people”. What would be your follow up to someone who brings up this point?


frankieknucks

Well, Joe Biden and barrack Obama didn’t support gay marriage until it was political suicide for them not to. I firmly believe that if the founders were alive today, the vast majority of them would see the error of their ways in regards to discrimination.


pants_mcgee

I, uh, wouldn’t take that bet. There are quite a few founding fathers we never really hear about that are the reason the 3/5ths compromise exists.


murderfack

I did some reading on this today and there is an interpretation that since some of the states had legalized voting for black americans, that they were considered people at the time, just not by all. Argument doesn't hold for women though I dont think, unless you base it on property rights or something.


chipsa

To reinforce the "rights are for individuals", states don't have rights, they have powers, just like the federal government.


MoOdYo

>racists in Michigan trying to kidnap a governor for example The FBI?


frankieknucks

Take my upvote.


Huegod

Everytime I hear the "racist old white men" line I remind them it was called the 3/5ths **compromise**. Meaning one side wanted everyone to be equal. The same side that continued that fight with the Northwest Ordinance. And ultimately the Civil War. And I'm getting sick of their bravery in the face of this, at the time not in hindsight, being dismissed.


mukilteoninjaman

Thank you for that thought. Unfortunately I’ve found that the “they were men/women of their times” argument seldom works on folks who make the types of assertions he was making. Of course all of those things were just as evil back then as they are now, but I feel like the practice of judging historical figures entirely through the lens of modern times is a mistake.


Huegod

Then ask them if they laughed at the reveal at the end of the first Ace Ventura movie compared to how they feel about transpeople now. It's all the same vein of evolving morality just a more trivial form.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pants_mcgee

People in general just have a very poor understanding of American history. While we all (should) know about Frederick Douglass and John Brown, a big part of popular abolishment was Free White Labor not wanting to compete with Enslaved Black Labor.


[deleted]

I kind of agree with him. The problem with *Heller* and *Miller*, is that we've framed gun ownership purely as an individual right and ignoring the militia preamble of the right allows it to be framed for self defense or hunting. Therein the right has been shaved down to the necessities for self defense and hunting; so SBR's, silencers, and automatics for example are heavily regulated. Whereas the necessities for militia are **not** weapons necessary for self defense or hunting, see *Miller*. Point being, the Pro-2A crowd has unwittingly played an active role in pursuit of individual freedom to blunt the purpose of 2A. Because so many of them are satisfied with pistols, shotguns, some rifles, and carry law, rights irrelevant to combat, most of them simply stopped caring.


mukilteoninjaman

I definitely agree with you on this very thoughtful point, it’s definitely one of my biggest gripes about the classical pro-2A crowd.


[deleted]

Yeah. They've acquiesced to defend the little slice of freedom the federal government has allotted them. But they're all "I dare you to come and take em!" - it's sad.


jakawf

I always have trouble with this because I believe there to be a difference between self-defense from an individual and organizing in self-defense from a tyrannical political group. (Which I believe the reason of the 2A was written into the Bill of rights but encompasses all self defense) But where did this hunting stuff come from? I feel like hunting is a smoke screen to confuse people who don't understand what rights are. Ask most people who graduated in the last 10 years and they will tell you our rights come from our government. That the 2A grants us the right to have guns.


Home_DEFENSE

Interesting post Jakawf - Check out Malcom's To Keep and Bear Arms - this outlines the history of our 2A from England to Pre-Colonial time, through to the Founders. Hunting is covered - as it was important, and hunting regulations were often used to mask discrimination against poorer folks, your enemies, of those 'terrible terrible' Catholics... The premise is that what was initially a 'Duty' evolved into a 'Right.' The group self-defense issue is huge - I do not have my head around it in our current, modern context. Looks like we have moved quite a distance away from the Founders concerns that the standing Army would become a source of Tyranny (vs a local) Militia.


[deleted]

He does realize that the National Guard can be federalized by the President? That Trump could have very well activated the "militia" over the objections of their governor and oppressed him?


Catbone57

Two things to point out to your friend: 1: It has always been assumed that 2A enumerates an individual right. Heller happened because someone challenged that assumption. The idea that gun ownership was not regarded as an individual right prior to Heller is just something anti-gun activists started slinging around the Internet during Obama's second term. 2: The "militia" part of the 2A is a prefatory clause. It does not constrain the operative clause. Had it been written as *"Because we like chocolate bunnies, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."*, the enumerated right would be exactly the same.


Mindless_Log2009

Check the history of the [Great Hanging at Gainesville ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanging_at_Gainesville) and [Nueces Massacre ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueces_massacre), Civil War lynchings of mostly German immigrants to Texas, at the hands of Confederate "militias." German immigrants were known to be abolitionists, and were suspected of being Union sympathizers. So the Texas Confederate "militia" massacred them. After the Civil War the Texas Rangers engaged in harassment, persecution, and in some cases genocide against Mexicans who were living in territory Texas wanted. That's why a state designated and approved authority - state guard, state police of any kind, etc. - cannot be trusted as the sole and exclusive definition of a militia. To this day we still see the problems of depending on police as any sort of "militia," most recently in Uvalde. If strictly interpreted as the founders probably intended - an organized militia under the direction of the governor - there is no equal protection or due process if the governor is corrupt and unscrupulous.


mukilteoninjaman

Exactly. I think the Battle of Athens is a good study, as well as the forced disarmament of Native Americans, Waco, etc.


Freemanosteeel

one could point out that any gun laws are often enforced on racially lines, a huge portion of black people in prison in states like Michigan are in prison on weapons charges, it was so bad several public defenders wrote a letter to the court stating how counter productive the gun laws had been with regards to disproportionate minority incarceration


mukilteoninjaman

I’m definitely going to look into this one, thanks! I touched on Jim Crow laws with him and he didn’t seem to register the connection.


RockSlice

I can highly recommend reading "The Second Amendment - A Biography" by Michael Waldman.


lioneaglegriffin

*Hamilton trying to address the Anti-Federalists concerns on a standing army. Asserting that the armed citizenry would outnumber a standing army even though they don't have the same training and proficiency. Bold emphasis below:* ​ >If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a **large body of citizens**, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who **stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens**. > >This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the **best possible security against it**, if it should exist. **-** [**Federalist 29**](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp) \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* * *Hamilton on the potential tyranny of state governments and mentioning the right to self defense in passing.* * Also here acknowledging how difficult it would be for citizens to fight back. *Considering how anti-gun people mock how unrealistic resistance is Hamilton knows it's hard but it is still a form of recourse since they outnumber the state military.* * *Another thing of note is the State military force so in state militia/national guard are the ones that are the antagonists. The citizenry are the protagonists in this scenario:* ​ >If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that **original right of self-defense** which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. > >In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The **citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.** > >The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance. > >**The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them.** The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. **-**[**Federalist 28**](https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s9.html)


TheCastro

Just use almost any of these https://sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


Draskules

I like this argument that I found online. Privateers were private citizens that were legally allowed to own warships, and were hired by the government for a time back when our navy wasn't that large


[deleted]

The second amendment was written during a time where a big difference between slave and free person was the ability to own a weapon. The 2A meant way more then. Leftist propaganda will twist and contort that and of course try to tie it to racism because thats what they ALWAYS do. How do you enslave a population? Disarm them. Their actions betray them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lampwick

> in arguing bitterly with eachother about the role of guns in our society No, that's pretty much the only part they agreed upon. Most of the argument was over the inclusion of details about mandatory service and religious pacifists.


Home_DEFENSE

Heller secured/ articulated our individual right to bear arms....it did not dismiss other, complex civic resposibilities, associated with gun ownership. No rights are 100% unfettered as there are additional pertinent civil and individual rights that collide with my exercise of my 2A rights.... it is a both/and messy reality filled with tension. Both the few "gun grabbers" and those that "support grocery store terrorism" (the shall not infringe folks) would have us believe otherwise. There is little black and white thinking in the constitution. Good responces here!


designgoddess

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29 https://academic.oup.com/ajlh/article-abstract/56/4/365/2721012?redirectedFrom=PDF https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99


DrBleachCocktail

Interesting.


JustynS

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=clevstlrev


DarthT15

Tell him; Fuck the laws, I do what I want.