jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
16,132 points (82% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

/r/news

unsubscribesubscribe13,047,877 readers
12,424 users here now
  1. Post all analysis/opinion/politics articles to /r/InTheNews
Want to talk?
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a message.
Submit all self- & meta-posts to /r/inthenews
Your post will likely be removed if it:
  • is not news
  • is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
  • primarily concerns politics.
  • has a title not taken from the article.
  • has a pay wall or steals content.
  • covers an already-submitted story.
  • violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
  • is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
  • is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
  • is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
  • is responding to spam.
  • violates reddit's site-wide rules.
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that story to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
/r/truereddit - insightful articles
/r/self - any self-post
/r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
/r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria
/r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting
/r/SavedYouAClick - making media more straightforward
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subjects
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
/r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/europe - news from Europe
Recommendations:
a community for
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
[–]Astalano 134 points135 points136 points  (143 children)
The courts are just plain old traitors to the constitution. The 2nd amendment EXPLICITELY means that you have the right to be armed.
That means modern weapons and armour.
You would have all your gear, your backpack, boots, ammo, M4, pistol, knife, and all the rest of the equipment that makes a man ready to go to war.
Everyone should have the right to purchase anything they want. The regulation is fine, background checks are fine. What is fucking infuriating is how owning modern equipment and equipping yourself has been perverted to mean 'hunting' rifles and 'self-defence' weapons at best.
Bitch, the 2nd amendment is crystal clear. The right to bear arms. In 10th century Scandinavia, the right of freemen to bear arms meant equipping themselves with chainmail, helmet, spear, sword, knife, javelins and any other gear. In the 19th century it meant your musket, your bayonet, your powder and ammo, boots, etc.
Nothing has changed. You have every right to equip yourself like any other soldier. I think the courts have gone far enough in watering down the 2nd amendment. This shit should really stop now. Enough is enough.
[–]Six_Foot_Turkey_64 9 points10 points11 points  (3 children)
In the 1900s it meant your musket, your bayonet, your powder and ammo, boots, etc.

1900s
Typo or brain fart?
[–]Astalano 15 points16 points17 points  (2 children)
Brain fart.
[–]Samizdat_Press 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
They had automatic weapons, and also allowed cannons and warships to be owned by citizens. How is there even debate for this?
[–]Astalano 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
Because people don't get that 'to bear arms' is something that is well established throughout history and that it applies to war. The left imported a lot of European ideas and poisoned people into believing that it only applies to self-defense and hunting, like in Europe.
[–]spedmonkey 4 points5 points6 points  (59 children)
Out of curiosity, by "modern weapons and armour" (by which I assume you're not an American, by the way) do you mean including, but not limited to, say, tanks, attack helicopters, RPGs, etc. with which a modern soldier is equipped?
[–]CaptainSnippy 10 points11 points12 points  (16 children)
Tanks and helicopters count as vehicles, I figure, so that would fall under different rules.
[–]spedmonkey 7 points8 points9 points  (15 children)
Any man-portable weaponry is OK, though?
[–]CaptainSnippy 9 points10 points11 points  (11 children)
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I'd say that's at least closer to what the rule should be.
[–]spedmonkey 2 points3 points4 points  (10 children)
I would point to the decision in Heller, which specifically limited the decision to those "in common use" at the time of the Bill of Rights' ratification, which specifically excludes "weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like." Do you feel that Heller was decided incorrectly?
[–]chaosfreak11 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
I would point to the decision in Heller, which specifically limited the decision to those "in common use" at the time of the Bill of Rights' ratification.
It does mention the possibility that "weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like" could be banned. They never make a ruling on it though.
They do point out that the Militias during the ratification of the second amendment consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. Meaning any able-bodied male citizen back in the old days would have had the right to own a military-grade weapon.
[–]spedmonkey -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
M-16s and other automatic rifles are mostly banned (and very heavily regulated for those grandfathered in). The Court has denied cert on any cases challenging this to this point.
The definition of "military-grade" has changed dramatically since 1791. Further, the Amendment doesn't give that right - it simply affirmatively gives the right "to bear Arms." Depending on what you feel "Arms" means, the argument differs quite a bit. If you're arguing that "Arms" consists of M-16s and upwards, then to this point, the fact that the Court has not reviewed any laws banning them means that said bans remain the law to this point.
[–]Sail2525 0 points1 point2 points  (7 children)
which specifically limited the decision to those "in common use" at the time of the Bill of Rights' ratification
This is incorrect. The common use rule of Heller is weapons in current common use. I can't remember if the court specified if they can then be regulated again once they fall out of common use.
[–]spedmonkey 1 point2 points3 points  (6 children)
The Court, in quoting this phrase, cites specifically to U.S. v. Miller, in which this phrase originally appears. Following this citation, the Court in Miller goes on to cite many examples of weaponry in common usage at the time of ratification in support of its usage. Further, the Court specifically states that its decision in Heller does not extent to the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons." I'd like to read any differing interpretations - do you have any links supporting your assertion?
[–]Sail2525 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
Ugh, you're misunderstanding.
The rule in Heller is that at the time of ratification they understood the rule to be that weapons in common use at the time to be protected, which at this time applies as well, as the legal principle doesn't change anymore than online newspapers being bannable but print media isn't. The reason the "at the time" was important is because Heller was linking a "new" rule to what had always existed but never been articulated by the court.
I've NEVER seen a legal interpretation otherwise, other than this case simply ignoring that rule from Heller entirely by pretending that these guns are "dangerous and unusual" which, legally speaking, they aren't. Every gun is inherently dangerous. It's referring to something particularly out of the ordinary, which a standard semi-auto can never be.
[–]spedmonkey 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
Scalia was noted for being an originalist - that is, he read the Constitution (and its Amendments) strictly as they were intended by the Founders and/or the drafters at the time of their inception. Scalia in his decision in Heller, again, specifically cites to that specific phrase in Miller, then goes on to specifically state that "the fact that modern developments have lim­ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right," specifically pointing to the M-16 as an example of a weapon that would not be covered by the 2nd Amendment. What exactly am I misunderstanding?
[–]Sail2525 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
Well we know what the minimum would be. The minimum would be at the very least the weapons that all non-military federal agencies use... like the AR-15 in this case.
The outer limits are more debatable. But if it's in common use by non-military government positions, you better believe it's protected.
[–]spedmonkey 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
you better believe it's protected.
To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has not decided on this either way. Do you have any other authority that would make me believe?
[–]Sail2525 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
The way I articulated it for you to understand is not the law. It's theory. The law is Heller, which outlined a principle of individual weapons "in common use at the time." Since the AR-15 platform is one of the most successful rifles of all time... yeah. The law is pretty clear.
[–]Astalano 7 points8 points9 points  (12 children)
Yes. But with proper regulation.
I don't think most people would try and buy attack helicopters though. Most people would just buy their own personal kit. Large groups and militias might pool resources to buy more advanced stuff.
The 2nd amendment is your human right and I don't think there should be limitations in how you exercise it, but there should be regulation so that the government and local communities can guide you in exercising it in a way that doesn't endanger other people.
The 2nd amendment isn't really a thing for self-defence, it's your right to bear arms that you're born with. For thousands of years people bought their own kit and equipped themselves. Freemen were often required to do so. The 2nd amendment is just an enshrining of that right into the constitution.
Any free man can bear arms. In medieval society, non-landowners often couldn't bear arms, but in the US, every man is free, so every man has the right to bear arms.
[–]spedmonkey 3 points4 points5 points  (11 children)
OK, just so I'm clear, because I can't really respond without knowing this: you don't feel that the 2nd Amendment (and, therefore, the rest of the Constitution and its amendments) should be tied to the originalist interpretation - that is, what was extant when the Bill of Rights was enacted? Rather, you feel that it should be constantly be applied and reinterpreted based on contemporary technology and society?
[–]Astalano 7 points8 points9 points  (10 children)
Rather, you feel that it should be constantly be applied and reinterpreted based on contemporary technology and society?
No, I think you have a right to bear arms. That's the starting point.
The 2nd amendment in its original intent just says that your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. So it's just a memo saying don't mess with people's right to gear themselves up for war.
I think that whether it applies to spears or M4s or cavalry or tanks or triremes or destroyers, it makes no difference. So I'm pretty literalist in my interpretation if you like. The right to bear arms throughout history means the right to arm yourself with all modern military equipment. That's the precedent. That's what I base it on.
[–]spedmonkey 3 points4 points5 points  (9 children)
OK. The decision in Heller, which is what many 2nd Amendment advocates seem to agree with, is specific in that it only applies to certain small arms, and specifically what would be kept at home by a militia member. You feel the Heller was decided too narrowly, I take it. Do you feel that there's any point where a line should be drawn?
[–]Astalano 4 points5 points6 points  (8 children)
Nuclear, biological and most chemical weapons. Those should be state controlled and not in the hands of civilians.
Also, please note that most people aren't going to buy tanks. The average joe isn't going to buy an F-35. So factor that in when you're considering how many people would actually try to buy such things.
As said all throughout, I'm firmly pro-regulation as well.
[–]spedmonkey 3 points4 points5 points  (7 children)
Why should the number of people willing/attempting to buy an item be the deciding factor?
[–]Astalano 3 points4 points5 points  (5 children)
Because people have this idea that if we let people buy tanks then suddenly the US is just going to be flooded with civvies buying Abrams and parking them in their garage before they go on a rampage through town.
[–]spedmonkey 6 points7 points8 points  (4 children)
I don't think this is accurately addressing the argument. My question: accept, for the moment, the assertion that fully armed and operational M-1 tanks are dangerous. Should we be deciding whether or not to regulate them based on whether a hundred or a thousand people are able to purchase them?
[–]thefilthyhermit 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
The cost of purchasing, operating and maintaining these items will be self-prohibitive.
The M1 Abrams tank costs 8.1 million dollars. A tank of gas holds 500 gallons and cost $1500 to fill up to drive 250 miles. Not to mention the cost of ammunition for the main gun and auxiliary machine guns. Throw in the cost of maintenance and spare parts. Not to mention the cost of training a crew to effectively operate the weapon system. It's just not going to happen.
Same goes for aircraft, though some helicopters might be pressed into service. News choppers stolen by prior service pilots. Still fuel and maintenance comes into play.
[–]Xendrus 5 points6 points7 points  (4 children)
Why not, assuming it is properly regulated and the pilot is trained by the military or a licensed 3rd party trainer. More pilots if we're ever invaded.
[–]spedmonkey 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
Is there a line? What about nuclear weapons?
[–]Xendrus -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Does common sense not get a say?
[–]briantrump -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
Because the majority of our citizens are dumbfuck hicks
[–]Samizdat_Press 3 points4 points5 points  (9 children)
Those are all legal currently yet no crimes are committed by them.
The founders allowed cannons and entire warship fleets. The ignorance on the left and their inherent disdain for the rights of Americans disgusts me.
Edit: Downvotes must be from people allergic to facts. Everything I said is objectively true.
[–]spedmonkey 1 point2 points3 points  (8 children)
Those are all legal currently [...]
The founders allowed cannons and entire warship fleets
Sources? I don't think any jurisprudence would agree with your first claim, and I'm curious to see what you mean by the second.
[–]Samizdat_Press 3 points4 points5 points  (7 children)
Wait you want a source thay tanks, rocket launchers etc are legal? Read a damn book.
By the second I mean they explicitly allowed weapons of war when this was written. Civilians could own warships, cannons, and automatic weapons which already existed. Also grenades.
[–]spedmonkey 4 points5 points6 points  (6 children)
If you've read so many of these books, it shouldn't be difficult to point me to a book that supports your claim, no?
[–]Samizdat_Press 6 points7 points8 points  (5 children)
The ignorance of the left is simply astounding, I have to explain the most basic shit to you people. Here you go:
GRENADE LAUNCHERS AND OTHER EXPLOSIVE MILITARY WEAPONS
With enough money or the right license , you can buy just about any weapon you've ever seen. Want to own a grenade launcher? Sure thing! As long as you're willing to fill out a ton of papers there's nothing to stop you from buying enough military hardware to overthrow a banana republic.
It's called a class III NFA firearm. You can grab your very own M203 grenade launcher for under $3,000.
MORTARS
If grenade launchers are too low-key for you, there's no reason you couldn't just go with a 60mm mortar instead.
ANTI TANK CANNONS
You can legally own a Lahti L-39 for about the same price as a mid-sized sedan. You can blow up 10 of said mid sized sedans with a single round.
TANKS
There are a number of online tank depots for civilian collectors. Want a T-72, the main battle tank of the former Soviet Union? Less than $50,000 and this 45-ton monster can rest in your driveway.
FIGHTER JETS
Civilian-legal military hardware doesn't stop at tanks, either. If you're willing to spend the time getting your pilot's license, you can also buy a working fighter jet. Everything from a 1956 "Venom" to a 2005 Northrop F-5 is available for anyone willing to pay. Prices start at around $4,500 and go up to $2 million for the nicer ones.
Now please, read. For once in your life leave your bubble and learn something that goes against your pre confirmed notions.
[–]spedmonkey -1 points0 points1 point  (4 children)
(a) Class III weaponry is heavily regulated, far beyond your average gun, and it requires far more than simply the requisite amount of currency to own one. Yes, in theory, you may own one, but the government scrutinizes heavily each purchase of these items. But government regulation of weaponry is perfectly acceptable, right? (b) Many of your links don't work. (3) Yes, you can own military hardware like tanks, aircraft, etc. But obviously the systems that make them weapons of war, such as radar, weaponry, etc. are deactivated and/or outright removed. You understand that these aspects are what make them worrisome, correct?
[–]Samizdat_Press 10 points11 points12 points  (3 children)
Moving those goalposts like a crooked soccer goalie I see.
Those are class 3, as in actual weapons of war.
Semi automatic Rifles and pistols are not weapons of war. I'll meet you in the middle, let's ban fighter jets and grenade launchers if Democrats will stop making it their platform to remove the nations most popular guns on the basis of ignorance. (all while claiming vehemently they aren't trying to take your guns)
You know when idiot old white Republicans legislate against the Internet because they don't understand it? Guns are the lefts version of that.
[–]spedmonkey 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
You understand that I'm trying to have a civil discussion with you, right? Just constantly throwing insults and being condescending or worse isn't conducive to that process. Just saying.
Getting back to the discussion at hand - you're correct in that tanks, military aircraft, etc. are technically legal. I worded my initial post poorly. However, military-capable ordnance are not. And you knew what I was talking about the entire time. You refer to "the nations most popular guns [sic]" in your post. To which in particular are you referring? What makes them weapons of war versus, for lack of a better term, ordinary private weaponry?
[–]qwertx0815 -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
jesus, calm your tits.
it's commendable that you source your claim, but behaving like an irrate middle schooler really detracts from your arguments.
[–]Helixfury 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
Small arms. Not artillery, vehicles, or ordnance.
[–]rheus 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
A small tactical nuke?
[–]sixsexsix 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
Legalize recreational nukes
[–]samurai00110 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
420 blaze it?
[–]noobediahkerman 3 points4 points5 points  (8 children)
Let's assume those were legal tomorrow. They would be so damn expensive only the most elite could purchase them. Rich people just don't go on mass murder sprees, statistics show, if that's your concern.
[–]spedmonkey -2 points-1 points0 points  (7 children)
So what you're saying is that we should let wealth determine who can and cannot bear modern arms?
[–]noobediahkerman 5 points6 points7 points  (3 children)
Well we are guaranteed the right to buy the item, not the item. Guns still have a price barrier. I'm not saying the wealthy should have them, but be reasonable in your argument. You have the right to do a lot of things that you can't afford to do. As it is only the wealthy have helicopters and airplanes, why would it be different if military hardware is legal? Bill bob the racist red neck still isn't going to be able to go buy an a-10 and decide to take on the border alone.
[–]spedmonkey 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
It seems to me that your argument is based on a premise that the wealthy are less likely to commit violent crimes than "Bill bob the racist red neck." Classism aside, assuming this is accurate: less likely is not the same as untrue. Let's say, hypothetically, anyone who is able to purchase a fully-outfitted Warthog is permitted to own and operate one and all its ordnance. Do you feel that this freedom is worth the risks inherent in having these items in the hands of anyone able to afford them?
[–]Akitten 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Yeah, why not, the rich guy has way more to lose by doing anything illegal with it. What is he gonna do? Gun down random people in the street?
[–]noobediahkerman 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
No, that's not what I'm saying. You're twisting what I'm saying into what you want to argue against. What I'm saying is everyone gets worked up about people having military hardware in these hypothetical situations and don't realize the absurd cost of these machines. What we know is that military hardware isn't required to kill thousands of people (see:911). Anyone can buy a 737 that has the cash, is it worth the inherent risk that someone can fly it into a skyscraper?
Do you feel that this freedom is worth the risks inherent in having these items in the hands of anyone able to afford them?
Really think about what you're saying, you have to apply this to literally any product with the possibility of doing someone harm. Whether a thing is legal or not someone is going to do what they want to do.
[–]evengraves 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
This is already the reality, with the way that full auto weapons were banned. You can still own them, they're just prohibitively expensive like 25k for an m16.
[–]spedmonkey 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
You're neglecting to take into consideration the heavily increased regulations and scrutiny that come along with attempting to purchase one of these grandfathered guns. Only someone who (a) can afford the extreme price tag, and (b) is deemed "fit" to own one can purchase an M-16. That's one thing; if the bar is simply who can and cannot afford to purchase one, that's a different argument entirely.
[–]evengraves 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Its essentially classism enabled by the government. Yeah it isn't so simple as just buying a 25k rifle, but the point is that there is no way an average joe is going to be able to buy one of these.
[–]Dat_Mustache 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
You can actually own those things. They're just
1) Prohibitively expensive. 2) Require licenses and background checks. 3) You will have to pay for Tax Stamps. 3) You will be inspected regularly by BAFTE for safety and compliance.
But sure, why not?
[–]dbv 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
self-defence
Typo or non-American?
[–]Astalano 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
I've always used both.
[–]Ejebdje 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Yep, that is the whole purpose of the second amendment. The minute you get called up to a militia you have all your weapons and gear ready so you are able to fight immediately
[–]DontBeSoHarsh comment score below threshold-14 points-13 points-12 points  (20 children)
So you think people should be permitted to own man-portable surface to air missile launchers & shaped charges to combat armor?
Kay. That's an interesting perspective.
[–]Astalano 11 points12 points13 points  (17 children)
Yeah, I think people should be able to buy whatever they want, with adequate background checks, tests, and regulations. To a certain extent.
They should be able to buy RPGs, equipment for detecting landmines, even APCs, IFVs, tanks, etc.
I don't see the issue personally.
I think the broader conversation should be about the extent to which corporations can exercise 2nd amendment rights and how much equipment a single person can buy. I.E., a corporation can't buy a fleet of tanks and a billionaire can't do the same.
I think that the minimum baseline should be personal armament, as in automatic weapons, body armour, etc. and from there we can have a reasonable discussion about what people should and should not be able to buy, what regulations to put, how much they can buy in terms of quantity, etc.
I don't see the issue with well regulated, accountable and transparent militias and individuals being able to buy a Javelin missile launcher, for example, as long as they're subject to regular checks from local law enforcement and able to pass very difficult tests and background checks. I.E., they should have a place to store the stuff safely, they should be able to explain their purpose for buying them, even if that's only to exercise 2nd amendment rights.
[–]MaestroLogical 4 points5 points6 points  (3 children)
I'm with you 100% on everything but I do have one caveat.
I think weapons of mass destruction should indeed be kept out of private (and state) hands. This would include Nuclear, Biologic and Chemical. Reasonably, one could infer that these weapons would not be needed to carry out the intent of the amendment, as using them on home soil would be counter productive for both sides. Therefor the potential for a single individual (Bill Gates for instance) going insane and destroying the entire East Coast is limited.
Agree or Disagree?
[–]Astalano 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
Agreed. I think militias and private citizens have no business using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Maybe white phosphorus rounds for tanks and other equipment, sure and tear gas and stuff like that, but the explicitly lethal kind of chemical weapons should be out of their hands.
These are weapons that can only be managed at the state level. Nuclear weapons have no business being outside of state control especially. They're more a tool of diplomacy anyway. A weapon of that much power needs government accountability.
[–]Akitten 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Rather than WMDs. which is a loose term, I'd rather use the term "Strategic Ordnance" implying weapons that in the military would be used to level areas, not people.
[–]DontBeSoHarsh -5 points-4 points-3 points  (12 children)
I think the broader conversation should be about the extent to which corporations can exercise 2nd amendment rights and how much equipment a single person can buy. I.E., a corporation can't buy a fleet of tanks and a billionaire can't do the same.
If you're allowed your way and we read the constitution that broadly across the entire document, those restrictions would be defeated under the 1st amendment's right to organize.
[–]Astalano 6 points7 points8 points  (11 children)
The constitution allowed people to own horses for war, which is the equivalent of modern armour in our day to a certain extent.
I don't think very many people will buy their own personal tank. Maybe small groups could pool resources and buy an IFV, for example, owning one as a militia.
I don't expect many people to go beyond personal armament (RPGs, sniper rifles, machine guns and other small arms).
I'm more concerned with corporations and rich individuals. In the past people could own their own cannons and horses. There were no real limitations. In today's world for those with a lot of disposable income I'm sure courts could put reasonable restrictions on what individuals and corporations can buy in terms of quantity and come up with reasonable regulations for that.
Personally though, I don't see the issue with say, a group of 1000 militia owning some humvees and Bradleys and maybe an Abrams. That's their right. We can come up with sensible rules on how people should exercise that right and put up regulations, tests and checks that make sure society is protected from unstable people.
The community is entitled to know if their local militia is handling their gear correctly for their own security and peace of mind. I don't see a problem with that.
I have a problem with infringing on people's rights.
Finally, as a little side note. I think pistols are a far bigger danger than automatics if you look at the statistics. I don't think people with automatics and larger caliber small arms who go through proper channels and checks are any real significant threat.
I think the answer is education and proper, universal regulation. That doesn't mean restricting the amendment, just making sure people practice it safely.
[–]DontBeSoHarsh -4 points-3 points-2 points  (9 children)
In today's world for those with a lot of disposable income I'm sure courts could put reasonable restrictions on what individuals and corporations can buy in terms of quantity and come up with reasonable regulations for that.
Again, I'm saying the 1st amendment would defeat that under the right to organize. You aren't addressing that. If your fantasy is the supermajority to edit the constitution to fit your whims, I assure you, liberals harbor personal, equally unreasonable fantasies. I'm letting you spitball your world here man, but you gotta play by your own rules.
Does the 2nd amendment outweigh the 1st? It seems your knowledge of it does.
[–]Astalano 1 point2 points3 points  (8 children)
Well, then a new amendment should be passed that places some reasonable restrictions and addresses this issue.
I can't give you a clear answer because I don't know what it is. I want rules that let large militias pool resources to purchase gear and armour.
What I don't want is billionaires buying their own tank fleet or corporations buying their own private armies.
So I don't know what the regulation would look like, but it would probably involve registering as a specific type of organisation that excludes corporations. For example, you would have a limit on how much armour and gear you can buy as a large militia and you must have no business ties.
You might register as a militia and publicly disclose all your finances. You might be a kind of non-profit and subject to tax-exemption. So a corporation couldn't be a militia.
You could then have certain tiers roughly equivalent to different parts in the army, e.g. fireteam, squad, section, platoon, company, batallion, regiment, division, corps, etc.
You could have a certain upper limit on what kind of gear you can have. So, you can have x number of tanks in a certain militia of a certain size.
That would also come with certain regulations, e.g. government officials can come and check up on you every so often, you have to have a place to store all your gear and vehicles securely, you should try to keep everything well maintained, etc.
I'm just shooting off ideas here though.
I will say that I consider the infringement of rights to be a bigger deal at this moment than the possible loopholes with regards to billionaires and corporations. I would rather the right to bear arms be allowed to be exercised first and then implement some amendment or law which allows you to regulate everything after, with regards to corporations and billionaires.
What should happen is that regulation should be imposed universally for all firearm users. That means background checks, tests, training, and every so often a checkup from law enforcement to check that everything is being stored and maintained safely.
I think that people should be able to use hunting rifles with help from an adult when they're young, sure, but I think even private transactions with sidearms and larger caliber, non-hunting equipment, should be subject to regulation.
So that means that your dad can show you hunting, but if you want to use your own pistol or use any hunting equipment on your own or automatics on your own, you need to go through the background tests, training and checks.
I think that it shouldn't be a background test to buy a gun, but background tests and checks to certify that you can safely exercise your second amendment rights without being a danger to your community.
[–]DontBeSoHarsh 1 point2 points3 points  (7 children)
Well, then a new amendment should be passed that places some reasonable restrictions and addresses this issue.
So your interpretation of reasonable requires a 2/3rds supermajority in congress and 3/4s majority of the states. To weaken the 1st amendment. You have a better chance of moving football to Wednesdays.
You might, just might, want to take that into account and consider your perspective as a tough sell.
[–]Astalano 1 point2 points3 points  (6 children)
Every generation has passed an amendment. This one should be no different.
Anyway, corporations are a collection of people, but what is wrong with passing a law that requires the registering of militias with the government as such in order to exercise the second amendment? Surely that doesn't violate the constitution.
Individuals have a right to exercise the 2nd amendment. That doesn't mean the government can't regulate that right. Not block it, just regulate it.
[–]DontBeSoHarsh 3 points4 points5 points  (5 children)
Anyway, corporations are a collection of people, but what is wrong with passing a law that requires the registering of militias with the government as such in order to exercise the second amendment? Surely that doesn't violate the constitution.
Neither does asking gun-owners to register their firearms so they don't walk off to be misused (every gun used illegally was bought legally the first time). Ask some fellows at the gun range how they'd feel about that restriction. I'd be down for registering my gun and submitting to random inspections that I can actually produce my deadly weapons, but I'm pretty fucking sure that's a minority opinion among gun owners. Then think about how easy it would be for someone on the radio to convince them that registering their militia is the same thing.
You think your nailing a 2/3rds majority and 3/4ths of the states with a nuanced opinion that attacks the 1st amendment? With regard to firearms?
It's simply not going to happen. If there was going to be any modifications to the constitution for our generation, my bet is regarding marijuana prohibition, or perhaps something to force presidents to release taxes, similar to how the 22nd amendment was introduced after FDR won his 4th term as little more than a corpse.
[–]ConservativeGene 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
Why should they not? One of the main reasons behind the second amendment was to protect us from a corrupt government. We get sticks and they get tanks?
[–]DontBeSoHarsh -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Well lets assume we live in a world where we had 240 years of a capable government keeping the peace. We had that hiccup where half the states tried to jump ship ~120 years back, but it's been pretty smooth sailing for The Great American Experiment, all considered.
I don't really want to live in a world where a criminal cell can attack my man's private armory and walk away with armament to shoot down airliners. To me, like that works to destabilize a legitimate government more than it acts to keep a corrupt one in check.
Lots of people starve during violent revolutions. People are far too casual with how they call for them in the worlds largest economy.
[–]briantrump -5 points-4 points-3 points  (8 children)
We need to go THE Australia route.
[–]samurai00110 2 points3 points4 points  (5 children)
You should ask them how that worked out.
[–]Knows_all_secrets 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
Really well? Gun crime is virtually nonexistent in Australia compared to the US.
[–]samurai00110 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
You should be proud then, I'm sure the astronomical rise in stabbing victims is simply coicidence tho.
[–]Knows_all_secrets -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
Watch what happens when a guy grabs a knife and tries to kill people at school compared to grabbing a bunch of guns - ever wonder why the you've never seen a headline reading 'Australian school massacre'?
[–]ziggy000001 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
Your comparing a pretty ethnically similar country that never really had a gun culture at all of only 20 million to a country of 300 million with just as many guns and vast economic and social disparities. Does that answer your question?
[–]Knows_all_secrets -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
You're*, and not really. What's ethnicity got to do with it, and you do realise Australia has a higher rate of migration per capita, right? And just as many guns as what?
[–]Astalano 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
No thanks.
[–]DiscordianStooge -4 points-3 points-2 points  (19 children)
Do you think the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to use those weapons against non-government agents?
[–]Astalano 7 points8 points9 points  (18 children)
No, that would be illegal.
The 2nd amendment is meant for wartime. Maybe militias could be used for military service in certain situations. But their real purpose in modern day is as a bulwark against a tyrannical government.
The US government is going to hopefully last for hundreds of years more. You can't predict what's going to happen. Hopefully the 2nd amendment never has to be exercised in that way.
In reality, the 2nd amendment has no explicit purpose though. It's your right as a human being. You are born with the right to bear arms and the government can't take it away from you. You're also born with the right to free speech. That doesn't mean that you have to use it.
The 1st amendment isn't always useful either, but it's tested occasionally. Just because you don't always say controversial, even anti-government things, it doesn't mean you won't someday. Hopefully you never have to speak out in a situation where you really need to invoke the first amendment.
[–]DiscordianStooge 2 points3 points4 points  (8 children)
No, that would be illegal.
Not necessarily in a self-defense situation.
I'll be more clear in my meaning. My view is that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with everyday self-defense, e.g. conceal and carry laws or stand your ground. Unlike the 1st Amendment, I believe it is designed specifically to allow people to rise up against a tyrannical government, and not for everyday use.
While I'm not against carrying for self defense, I just don't see it as a Constitutional issue.
[–]Astalano -1 points0 points1 point  (7 children)
I believe it is designed specifically to allow people to rise up against a tyrannical government, and not for everyday use.
I partly agree, but disagree with the intent here.
The 2nd amendment doesn't give you anything. You already have the right to bear arms. That right to bear arms can be used against a tyrannical government. But the right in itself doesn't have a clearly defined purpose.
You have a right to life. It doesn't mean that your life has to have a certain purpose.
I view the self-defense concept and concealed carry as minor, meaningless issues which don't have much to do with the 2nd amendment. In my opinion concealed carry should be illegal actually. I don't like the idea of people hiding weaponry. It should be on display, clearly visible for people to see so that people are informed.
There is no real difference between a pistol and a sword. I wouldn't want people in medieval times walking around hiding a sword either.
[–]DiscordianStooge -1 points0 points1 point  (6 children)
The 2nd amendment doesn't give you anything. You already have the right to bear arms.
OK, that's a semantic argument. I actually agree with the rest of what you said as well. I will point out that banning concealed carry would infringe on the right to bear arms.
[–]Astalano 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
It's not a semantic argument, it's a very important distinction.
If you don't have the right to bear arms, then the government can take it away when they like. It's a chicken or egg argument. What came first, your rights or the government? I would say your rights come first, then the government promises not to infringe on them.
I will point out that banning concealed carry would infringe on the right to bear arms.
I don't see how. You have a right to bear arms. You don't have a right to bear arms however you like. You shouldn't be able to just walk around with a gun fully loaded and the safety off. You also shouldn't be able to hide a gun. If you have a gun, people should know it and be aware of that possible danger.
[–]DiscordianStooge 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
It's not a semantic argument, it's a very important distinction.
It is when talking about "rights." It's pretty clear that the "rights" talked about in the Bill of Rights have never been inaliable in human history, which means they are ultimately an agreement of what will or won't be allowed.
You have a right to bear arms. You don't have a right to bear arms however you like.
This could easily be extended to,"You don't have the right to carry whatever arms you like." Again, I agree with you, but I don't think your arguments are at all in line with the arguments of gun rights advocates in the U.S.
I am curious what your argument would be that a person has an inherent right to carry a gun but not to carry that gun in the way they see fit.
[–]Astalano 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
It's pretty clear that the "rights" talked about in the Bill of Rights have never been inaliable in human history, which means they are ultimately an agreement of what will or won't be allowed.
From what I understand it refers to god given rights from our creator. As in rights you're born with.
This could easily be extended to,"You don't have the right to carry whatever arms you like."
No, because that would restrict your right to bear arms, by limiting access to what arms you can bear.
Think of it like a pool of water. Regulation is like directing it in a certain way. It still can be exercised, but in a certain way. By limiting it, you cut off the flow. So that is infringing on it. As long as the 2nd amendment can be exercised I don't see the issue.
Now, if the tests to exercise the 2nd amendment involved going on a quest to find the lost scrolls of Balthazar, that would be unreasonable and infringing regulation. As long as it makes sense and is achievable by the average person, I don't see the issue.
I am curious what your argument would be that a person has an inherent right to carry a gun but not to carry that gun in the way they see fit.
For the safety of the community. The community has a right to know who is carrying a gun, especially in peacetime. The police have a right to know that you have a locker to store your M4 in, which has a lock and is safe so that children can't get to it. There's precedent for banning concealed carry.
Now, the state can't say that you can only fire single shot and not full auto. But I think in the interests of community safety it can say that you should be transparent when transporting weaponry or carrying weaponry.
You shouldn't be able to carry loaded weapons with the safety off. You shouldn't able to carry weapons by pointing the barrel straight ahead into a crowd. You also shouldn't be allowed to conceal it. I don't see the distinction, It's part of firearm safety and community safety. It's reasonable regulation.
[–]DiscordianStooge -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
From what I understand it refers to god given rights from our creator. As in rights you're born with.
I get that, but again most of these rights have not been available to nearly every human in the history of civilization, so I'm not sure how they can be argued as universal in any realistic way.
No, because that would restrict your right to bear arms, by limiting access to what arms you can bear.
It doesn't say "bear any arms," it says "bear arms." If I only give you a choice of 6 legal guns, you are still allowed to bear arms.
The community has a right to know who is carrying a gun, especially in peacetime. The police have a right to know that you have a locker to store your M4 in, which has a lock and is safe so that children can't get to it. There's precedent for banning concealed carry.
Again, I totally agree with you. I'm sure you know this is not the stance of the largest gun lobby in the U.S., though.
I'll add that I'm being intentionally and unreasonable obstinate here, and if you're not interested in continuing I totally understand. I'm enjoying your arguments immensely, though.
[–]Samizdat_Press 1 point2 points3 points  (8 children)
Self defense is illegal now? You guys move the goal posts to the point of insanity.
[–]Astalano 4 points5 points6 points  (7 children)
No, the way he structured the question made me think that he meant that people should be able to shoot others or to rise up against non-government agents.
You have the right to self-defense. I do believe it should be proportional though. If you get slapped you don't have a right to shoot someone over it.
[–]Samizdat_Press 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
Ah I see what you mean. Escalation of force is always important. Not proportional, if you fear for your life you still have the right. If a large man with a knife threatens you you shouldn't be forced to only use a knife.
[–]Astalano 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
I don't think being punched means you get to shoot someone either. Proportional and logical escalation of force. Someone comes at you with a knife or aims a loaded gun at you or is trying to choke you, etc.
[–]Samizdat_Press 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
Depends. More people die by fists and feet then all Rifles combined.
[–]Astalano -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)
I'm just saying, try not to kill people. Running away is even a better option. If you could run away and you choose to stand your ground and shoot someone, that's still unnecessary force in my opinion.
[–]Samizdat_Press 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
In a free country one does not need to run away when they can defend themselves. That's victim blaming, if attacked and you can egress without Co click then sure maybe, but you have a right to stand your ground and defend yourself.
[–]olican101 -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
People took the same stance on gay marriage. Luckily people that stand in the way of society progressing tend to be on the wrong side of history.
[–][deleted]  (9 children)
[deleted]
    [–]Hobby_In_Everything 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
    Courts also decided that a single person is a militia. Any further questions? You can google it.
    [–][deleted]  (1 child)
    [deleted]
      [–]Hobby_In_Everything 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
      You still don't get the point do you? You made a snarky comment on how a person needs to have other people to be a militia, but courts ruled on a single person being a militia too.
      Everyone should that courts are allowed to regulate weapons. Same with other rights - rights are rights until they engross other people's rights. It's people like you that still make stupid comments not knowing anything that bothers me.
      Anyways back to the point, what are you trying to prove with your strawman argument?
      [–]sllop 1 point2 points3 points  (5 children)
      Every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 is part of the militia.
      [–]MisPosMol 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
      Not trying to take sides here (I'm not american), but doesn't that definition imply everyone over 45 has to give theirs guns up?
      [–]Samizdat_Press 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
      No.
      I don't think they could have made it any more clear
      • "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788*
      • "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
      • “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty,it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
      • "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
      • "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
      • "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
      • "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
      [–]sllop 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      That's a very interesting question. I don't have the answer. It would be easy to assume that we would and do follow the Swiss model of keeping your service weapon and property, but I'm certainly no expert.
      [–][deleted]  (1 child)
      [deleted]
        [–]sllop 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        I don't even personally own a firearm. I just know the law specific to this issue.
        [–]bobwarth comment score below threshold-14 points-13 points-12 points  (13 children)
        A whole fucking lot has changed. War is fought in a completely different way than it was in the 1700s. The founding fathers could not have possibly envisioned what modern weapons are.
        [–]Ogthugbonee 6 points7 points8 points  (3 children)
        A whole fucking lot has changed. Freedom of speech is completely different than it was in thr late 1700s. The founding fathers could not have possibly envisioned what modern freedom of speech is.(internet, radio, television) One of the reasons america has had the longest standing government without revolution is because the founding fathers knew EXACTLY what the bill of rights would do. Now sure, we shouldnt let civillians have things like tanks and grenades and shit, but to say that the founding fathers didnt know how different modern weapons would be is insulting to not only them, but to the entire bill of rights.
        [–]MisPosMol 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
        The longest standing government without revolution? Possibly Sweden 1523, UK 1688, San Marino 301? Maybe a few others.
        [–]samurai00110 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
        Didn't the UK have some issue with some colonies overseas? Sometime around 1776 if I remember right.
        [–]MisPosMol -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
        Overseas colonies, yes. Several issues over the past few years, but the UK itself has had stable government since the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
        [–]Astalano 5 points6 points7 points  (6 children)
        It takes what, 200,000 bullets at a minimum to kill a single target? Modern firearms are practically useless in war compared to muskets in their own contexts.
        If anything, firearms have become more deadly but also much less efficient.
        An M4 or M16 is the absolute minimum armament for properly exercising your 2nd amendment rights, in terms of modern weaponry for the infantryman.
        A unit will often have:
        • Machine gunner
        • Marksman
        • Maybe grenade launcher
        • Hand held anti-armour weaponry
        • Grenades
        This is what the modern infantryman carries. This is what it means to exercise your 2nd amendment rights in a group, in a modern context.
        It's irrelevant though, as said. Head on warfare is won with the use of armour, air power, naval power. Wars of maneuver and massed armour with flexible infantry with a lot of firepower per individual, but still, the infantry can't succeed alone. The infantryman is at his weakest point in history in terms of effectiveness by himself.
        You should be able to arm yourself with almost everything, as long as you pass certain background checks, take certain tests and are liable to checks every so often to make sure you're not putting others in danger.
        The 2nd amendment is clear. That doesn't mean it can't be regulated by communities and local government. But it should still be exercised fully, and that also includes even APCs, IFVs, tanks, etc. We can have a discussion about those that can be reasonable.
        I don't see the issue with individuals being able to purchase almost anything, as long its regulated correctly. But at the bare minimum, people should be able to arm themselves as regular infantry, and that includes machine guns, sniper rifles, missile launchers and other small arms.
        Edit:
        Here is the source for the first statistic. I actually underestimated how inefficient modern small arms are.
        That's 250K bullets for every single insurgent. Goes to show you just how 'deadly' modern firearms are in a battlefield context.
        [–]deltorax -1 points0 points1 point  (5 children)
        But IRL (you know, ie people that want a gun in America) only need one bullet to kill someone. Maybe like, a few just in case.
        [–]Astalano 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
        I'm talking in a military context, e.g. rebelling against a tyrannical government.
        It only takes a small piercing with a spear in your gut to kill you too, especially if it gets infected.
        Yeah, guns are more lethal now, but it's still mostly pistols that are used to kill civilians. So unless you want to ban pistols I don't see a solution besides proper background checks, tests and regular checkups by police.
        I don't mean a background check for guns specifically though. I would probably have it like a tiered system. So you study for exams, you have a background check and the more access you want the more exams and checks you take and the more equipment you need. For example, you don't need anywhere super secure for a pistol in your house.
        Passing a test and check can qualify you to exercise safely certain parts of your second amendment rights, e.g. level 1 tests qualify you for pistols, level 2 for assault rifles, level 3 for more specialised stuff like RPGs, machine guns, etc., and on and on.
        So you get maybe like a license that shows that you can safely practice your second amendment rights within your community and you can buy any gun you want that falls within that category.
        [–]deltorax 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
        unless you want to ban pistols
        I mean, I'd be OK with that.
        It only takes a small piercing with a spear in your gut to kill you too, especially if it gets infected
        Not really, especially since the 1940s and the advent of penicillin. It still only takes one bullet to kill someone though.
        Answer that you might listen to instead of flipping out over gun control: Suppose I am a terrorist, born in the US. I am, say, the Orlando shooter. I act pretty normal. I do all this stuff you want me to do, I end up with a fucking RPG and an assault rifle. Nice, now I can go and murder so many people!
        Please don't tell me that other people also having RPGs will somehow help this either.
        PS Thx 4 the immediate downvotes.
        [–]Astalano 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
        I mean, I'd be OK with that.
        And it totally goes against the 2nd amendment.
        Not really, especially since the 1940s and the advent of penicillin.
        I'm referring mostly to older times, to be fair.
        It still only takes one bullet to kill someone though.
        Sure.
        Suppose I am a terrorist, born in the US. I am, say, the Orlando shooter. I act pretty normal. I do all this stuff you want me to do, I end up with a fucking RPG and an assault rifle. Nice, now I can go and murder so many people!
        Data doesn't back you up though. Most murders are done by pistols. So you have no real point. Obviously people who own the most dangerous weapons aren't committing the most crimes with them or killing the most people. I don't think in a world where people could buy RPGs that you would get loads of people being shot at by RPGs, especially with proper regulation.
        Please don't tell me that other people also having RPGs will somehow help this either.
        No, a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun has always been a dumb idea.
        [–]deltorax -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
        you have no real point. Obviously people who own the most dangerous weapons aren't committing the most crimes with them or killing the most people
        It's weird how you're ignoring my points and saying I don't have any. Data does back me up -- US-born terrorists who could pass your tests exist, and kill people.
        [–]InSOmnlaC 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Courts could not have possibly envisioned the Internet... Yet..
        [–]TheSensualSloth 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        That's like saying people right now couldn't even imagine laser weaponry.
        Now I guarantee the founding fathers couldn't envision the internet, should the 1st amendment not apply to it? Only printing presses from 1776 and before are protected?
        Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2017 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
        REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
        π Rendered by PID 23860 on app-412 at 2017-02-27 03:59:46.178579+00:00 running 2811aac country code: NL.
        Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
        0%
         
        10%
         
        20%
         
        30%
         
        40%
         
        50%
         
        60%
         
        70%
         
        80%
         
        90%
         
        100%