The Gun Control Debate Thread

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
What does this part of it mean?

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who is supposed to do this regulation and could that be interpreted as including some forms of gun control?

I don't really believe in banning any form of guns but I think some guns should be regulated more than others.

Just wondered why that part of the amendment seems to be ignored.
 

Genghis Khan

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,440
in this context, it means well drilled basically. Nothing to do with controlling or limiting gun ownership. Keep in mind we didn't have a standing army when this was written so this is addressing that.

As an aside, there's a satirical essay on this, I believe it's called A Well Regulated Militia. Something about requiring weekend drills for gun ownership.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,791
I am neutral on guns but If I were going to make a law I would center it on all assault weapons automatic and semi. The seller would do all the clearances as is being done now and even if the buyer passed they could buy the gun with this caveat. A part of the gun would be removed rendering it useless and to get the necessary part to make it operable the buyer would have to be interviewed and make a final clearance with the FBI and only if cleared would the missing part be issued.
 

jsmith6919

Classless Shitpainter
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
23,047
Fully automatic rifles are already very hard to get cleared for, it's not the normal go in buy and wait to be ok'd. Holding a part back isn't as easy as you think, there are tons of aftermarrket parts. I might be fine with not letting individuals be able to buy guns if they're being investigated by the FBI, if they can't run for President then either
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
38,261
What does this part of it mean?

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who is supposed to do this regulation and could that be interpreted as including some forms of gun control?
You're looking at two separate things. One is the need to maintain a militia and the other is the right of the people to bear arms without it being infringed. That's why there is a coma in that sentence. They are basically saying regulate a the militia but don't you dare touch a person's right to keep a gun.

Now you might argue that the constitution was written during a time when they didn't even know what an assault rifle was, which is true, but in the context of the time they were dealing with they still wouldn't have wanted that right infringed upon. They basically viewed people as needing to be able to defend themselves from outside sources to the best of their ability. It's actually a little sad that a country founded on principles of freedom is now slowly trying to eliminate freedoms and become more like the countries that this country fought so hard to separate themselves from once upon a time.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,791
You're looking at two separate things. One is the need to maintain a militia and the other is the right of the people to bear arms without it being infringed. That's why there is a coma in that sentence. They are basically saying regulate a the militia but don't you dare touch a person's right to keep a gun.

Now you might argue that the constitution was written during a time when they didn't even know what an assault rifle was, which is true, but in the context of the time they were dealing with they still wouldn't have wanted that right infringed upon. They basically viewed people as needing to be able to defend themselves from outside sources to the best of their ability. It's actually a little sad that a country founded on principles of freedom is now slowly trying to eliminate freedoms and become more like the countries that this country fought so hard to separate themselves from once upon a time.
I agree with this but my take is that even with a Militia in place the circumstances could arrive that the Milita would not be readily available so the individual has the right to arm themselves because of this. The ability to solely rely on military for help was a virtual impossibility then.

Some judges would argue that now there are local, county, state and even national forces to mitigate the original purpose. That's the current battleground position.
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
in this context, it means well drilled basically. Nothing to do with controlling or limiting gun ownership. Keep in mind we didn't have a standing army when this was written so this is addressing that.

As an aside, there's a satirical essay on this, I believe it's called A Well Regulated Militia. Something about requiring weekend drills for gun ownership.
Even if you use regulated to mean well drilled, that's still does not fit everybody having guns with little restrictions.

If they are well drilled it means that all guns owners are somewhat accounted for which flies in the face of what some are railing against.

And at the very least there is some interpretation needed and it's not as simple as every citizen has the right to carry.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
38,261
Even if you use regulated to mean well drilled, that's still does not fit everybody having guns with little restrictions.

If they are well drilled it means that all guns owners are somewhat accounted for which flies in the face of what some are railing against.
The well drilled has to do with the militia.

This is a pretty clear and unambiguous statement: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
You're looking at two separate things. One is the need to maintain a militia and the other is the right of the people to bear arms without it being infringed. That's why there is a coma in that sentence. They are basically saying regulate a the militia but don't you dare touch a person's right to keep a gun.

Now you might argue that the constitution was written during a time when they didn't even know what an assault rifle was, which is true, but in the context of the time they were dealing with they still wouldn't have wanted that right infringed upon. They basically viewed people as needing to be able to defend themselves from outside sources to the best of their ability. It's actually a little sad that a country founded on principles of freedom is now slowly trying to eliminate freedoms and become more like the countries that this country fought so hard to separate themselves from once upon a time.
That's your interpretation and I am not saying it does not fit but a comma does not make a sentence have 2 different meanings.

Reading the sentence as worded all of those things are intertwined.

The way I read it is citizens have the right to bear arms so that they can have the security of a free state by having a well regulated militia.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
38,261
That's your interpretation and I am not saying it does not fit but a comma does not make a sentence have 2 different meanings.

Reading the sentence as worded all of those things are intertwined.

The way I read it is citizens have the right to bear arms so that they can have the security of a free state by having a well regulated militia.
Again, well regulated modifies the term militia. It doesn't modify the portion giving the right to bear arms. It's just English. Maybe I've been in law too long or something but this isn't confusing at all.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
The well drilled has to do with the militia.

This is a pretty clear and unambiguous statement: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
If it's so clear and unambiguous why is not a stand alone sentence?

You can't just ignore the beginning part of that sentence.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
38,261
If it's so clear and unambiguous why is not a stand alone sentence?

You can't just ignore the beginning part of that sentence.
Because the need for a militia and the need for the citizens to be able to bare arms both had to do with the ability of the people to defend their country and property.

No one is ignoring the beginning of the sentence. We just don't really have a need for militia anymore. Just like the third Amendment is pretty useless these days. But something describing a militia doesn't describe something else just because it's in the same sentence, that would just be silly. If this was a statute and you brought your argument in front of a judge you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.
 

Iamtdg

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
91,145
Here at the DCC, we even redefine the constitution. You won't find that kinda content anywhere else. :lol
 

Kbrown

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Again, well regulated modifies the term militia. It doesn't modify the portion giving the right to bear arms. It's just English. Maybe I've been in law too long or something but this isn't confusing at all.
It is a dependent clause modifying the independent clause, not expressing a separate thought.

I am pro-gun, but I'm just saying.
 

Genghis Khan

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,440
If it's so clear and unambiguous why is not a stand alone sentence?

You can't just ignore the beginning part of that sentence.
You can't just ignore the end part of that sentence. Anyone who is trying to claim that the end part isn't the operative phrase of the amendment is being intellectually dishonest.

The first part is the reasoning for it, the second part is the black letter law.

It simply can't be otherwise. If you broke it into two sentences, the second part stands alone. The first part does not. There's no directive there. It's actually pretty clear and it's only been called into question by people who have a political agenda.

If congress wants to eliminate guns, there's an amendment process. It's that simple.
 

Genghis Khan

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,440
Because the need for a militia and the need for the citizens to be able to bare arms both had to do with the ability of the people to defend their country and property.

No one is ignoring the beginning of the sentence. We just don't really have a need for militia anymore. Just like the third Amendment is pretty useless these days. But something describing a militia doesn't describe something else just because it's in the same sentence, that would just be silly. If this was a statute and you brought your argument in front of a judge you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

Correct.
 

data

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
35,106
This might be a separate topic, but does the regulation of legal assault rifles/weapons have a bearing on preventing mass shootings?

If more handgun owners could prevent/limit damage of mass shootings, that's assuming you're carrying a handgun in public. Even if you owned assault rifles, you wouldn't be carrying them in public (or is this part of the argument)?
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
38,261
Even if you owned assault rifles, you wouldn't be carrying them in public (or is this part of the argument)?
I mean you could but the stigma about assault rifles is so bad right now that if you're seen carrying one the cops get called and they try to arrest you. That's why you get the ridiculous videos of people carrying them around trying to make a point with officers.

Hand guns are semi automatic. I imagine you could do just as much damage with a few of those as an assault rifle.

Again unrelated but what in the hell is the point of a gun free zone if you aren't actually going to make sure people don't have guns? It's one of the dumbest concepts.
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
You can't just ignore the end part of that sentence. Anyone who is trying to claim that the end part isn't the operative phrase of the amendment is being intellectually dishonest.

The first part is the reasoning for it, the second part is the black letter law.

It simply can't be otherwise. If you broke it into two sentences, the second part stands alone. The first part does not. There's no directive there. It's actually pretty clear and it's only been called into question by people who have a political agenda.

If congress wants to eliminate guns, there's an amendment process. It's that simple.
I am not ignoring the end part, I realize it's importance.

My question is how does the 1st part fit in and why is it never discussed when 2nd amendment issues are being discussed.

I truly had not ever seen the amendment in it's entirety until yesterday.

How can you make one part of a sentence black letter law and ignore the rest of it?
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Why is gun bans being brought up here?

I am not advocating that and it is not part of the question I asked.

Why take it to that extreme?
 
Top Bottom