Time for a new "Mass Shootings" thread

No disagreements, I just think that the constitutional argument for "a well-regulated militia" is on shaky grounds if we want to consider Roe and Planned Parenthood as equally valid.

 

What "well regulated" was intended to mean may be debated, but one thing about it, it certainly does NOT mean a constitutional right to general or unrestricted gun ownership. Which is how gun rights advocates want to use the 2nd.

 

And while the 2nd Amendment might be a poorly written sentence, using the "plain meaning" doctrine, the intent of the sentence seems pretty clear to me. That the Supreme Court used some twisted interpretation and reasoning because they didn't want to stand up to gun interests, that's another matter.

 

Everything can be debated. Even the meaning of the word "is." But that doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable interpretation and another that's way out in left field.

 

No, they did a little research into the history. It really really really was intended to mean general, unrestricted gun ownership, and it isn't too hard to find that out if you look into the contemporary discussions and meanings of the phrases in prior law.

I'm in favor of the same types of controls you are at this point-- but I'm pretty well acquainted with what they had actually gone through and hoped to avoid for the future. They distinctly wanted the average citizen to be free to own his own arms, and to need no government training in their use when he was called in as a militiaman.

They also fully expected private ownership of artillery, as that was the prevailing norm throughout the western and Muslim and even East Asian worlds... There isn't a whole lot of point in pretending otherwise, when the courts can find the same thing as soon as they start to look.

If we want real restrictions on guns, we're either going to have to lie to ourselves and everyone else, or amend the 2nd...

 

"Corporations are persons" is statute-based, not Constitutional isn't it? Once they are defined as people then the rights follow.

 

#banguns

 

so how do you interpret those words? in my mind, the interpretation is pretty clear and straightforward as to context and purpose for gun ownership.

 

okay, I hadn't read any of the contemporary discussions regarding the 2nd and what THEY intended for it to mean.
in my mind, the meaning is so clear that I don't see how they could have written what they did, and intend for it to mean a general right to gun ownership. but I'll take your word for it and drop the subject.

 

but still part of a militia, no? a well-armed militia or a regular militia. based on a simple reading of the words (and now regard for any contemporaneous discussions regarding the intent), in my mind at least, the 2nd Amendment still defines the context of gun ownership within the context of a militia and for the purpose of defending the state.

 

Fyp

 

It isn't even so much what they said in the contemporary discussions, or even that the meaning of the words has directly changed all that much. It is that the concepts of "militia" and "regular" do not relate in at all the same ways.

Remember they also took care to protect the populace from the quartering of soldiers; they and their constituents had just experienced this exact unpleasantness. The professional troops sent to the colonies in the build up to the Revolution were officered by terribly arrogant men, and the troops themselves were uncouth even by colonial standards-- and the colonists were required to provide them bed and board. The military system of the age was barely post-medieval, far more advanced in tactics than logistics and behavior, and armies were often still expected to live off the land they were sent to. Regular troops were more "Braiins" than "Semper fi" the world over in 1789.

The FF clearly perceived that a standing army would be both a burden and a threat to a republic, and desperately wanted to avoid having one. The events of King's Mountain, where a crack unit of British troops was annihilated by what was essentially a flash mob with hunting rifles, gave them the hope that an army might be unnecessary beyond some artillerymen to defend the ports. To them it appeared that even though European militias were of almost no military value, their own might be sufficient to defend their nation. (As late as World War One there were still debates in Congress as to whether West Point should be closed as a threat to liberty... the FF did not intend the 2nd amendment to empower the citizenry to overthrow legitimate government-- but they definitely envisioned it empowering resistance to an overthrow by a military class.)

King's Mountain's outcome, BTW, was actually more a demonstration of technology than anything else-- Ferguson's mounts and rapid fire carbines would have overwhelmed the colonials in cleared ground; but in the wooded hills of Carolina, a rifleman who could climb trees could shoot down on the dragoons from outside their carbines' range, despite the dragoon's "control of the high ground." The real "high ground" was the treetops, and it was marksmanship, not the "stout hearts of liberty" that made all the difference.

Still, the American frontier militia did exceed all reasonable expectations during the Revolution (and would again in 1812)-- and the frontier still started about 30-40 miles from the coast all over the country at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

One of the things it is hard to keep in mind today is that there were no roads to speak of-- there was Broadway, from NYC to Albany, which was passable to wagons in dry season, but only barely, and something similar from Boston to Albany, a road of sorts from Ticonderoga to Lake George, and something sketchy from Philadelphia to Baltimore. Practical commercial transport and travel was 99% by water. We were a coastal nation.

So the FF expected any military crisis to be fairly slow developing-- an enemy might land at the waterline, but there would still be time enough to call out the militia and make a plan. As long as the militia could shoot and ride (and climb trees,) they hoped to be able to drive off any invader the same way they did at Concord, at the Cowpens, at Morningside Heights, at Bennington-- not in the cities, but from the interior.

But to make it work, they needed that demographic of men and boys who could shoot far better than regular European troops -- militia who were something close to a match for regular troops at least on their home ground; a "well-regulated militia."

 

so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that although the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the state, and although the context said protection was a militia which can be assembled as needed, the way to achieve this purpose was through constitutionally guaranteed general right to gun ownership, and one did not have to be a member of a militia to have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun. the intent of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee the right to general gun ownership, so that in case of an invasion, the militia could be assembled from the general public who owned guns for the purpose of protecting the state. is that about it?

 

That's about it; except that "militia" was sometimes used to mean "citizens enrolled in emergency military units" and at other times to mean "able-bodied military age males whether enrolled in anything or not." The concept had a certain fluidity, partly because most of the world's militias when called into service seemed to lack large numbers of those sworn to respond while including some never previously heard from. It wasn't "National Guard" so much as "What we're gonna haveta do if pirates land or the slaves revolt or the injuns are coming."

One of the earliest acts of Congress was to require that almost every military aged male be enrolled in a militia troop where he lived-- but no effort was ever expended to enforce it, and actual militia organizations when created were a product more of individual initiative and social expectation than legal requirement.

Richard M Johnson recruited and organized his "Legion of Mounted Riflemen" simply because somebody had to do something or it wouldn't be possible for the territories to survive. Their legal status was worked out long afterwards, when issues of rank developed when they started cooperating with William Henry Harrison's militia-made-regulars... (Which were still really just veteran militia; the government adding them to the muster rolls allowed them to receive federal supplies, but as far as I know, none of them ever got a single day's pay.)

Aand...

There's a little further confusion possible in that "militia" was not understood to be entirely a military form of public service; posse or jury duty was regarded as militia service, for example. Fire fighting on occasion.

 

well, that makes sense...
as a result of which, the case for increased gun regulation is nearly impossible make.

 

"Regulars" always referred to professional troops; uniformed, government maintained, round the clock soldiers.

"Well-regulated" pretty much meant "behaving like real soldiers when in actual muster." When a militiaman is referred to as a "regular member" all they are really saying is that he always shows up at the designated drill times or calls and isn't too drunk to walk when he does... that they count on him unlike some of the others...

 

Pretty much, yep. Amend the 2nd seems to me what it will take; either that or a Supreme Court prepared to ignore the history and pretend "well-regulated" refers to something it really didn't.

At this point I favor amendment, because I do not see that the protections it gives me have as much import as the hazards it exposes me to.... but it will take a while yet.

 

I suppose you can argue that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is still the protection of the state (not home defense, personal protection, hunting, etc.), and now that we have a standing army, the purpose of the 2nd (and therefore the 2nd itself) is OBE. but that's going to be a hard sell in our current polarized political environment.

 

Slate has a decent article on the role played by anger, as opposed to mental illness, in random and not so random acts of violence.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ental_illness_to_stop_mass_murder.single.html

In the wake of a string of horrific mass shootings by people who in many cases had emotional problems, it has become fashionable to blame mental illness for violent crimes. It has even been suggested that these crimes justify not only banning people with a history of mental illness from buying weapons but also arming those without such diagnoses so that they may protect themselves from the dangerous mentally ill. This fundamentally misrepresents where the danger lies.

Violence is not a product of mental illness. Nor is violence generally the action of ordinary, stable individuals who suddenly “break” and commit crimes of passion. Violent crimes are committed by violent people, those who do not have the skills to manage their anger. Most homicides are committed by people with a history of violence. Murderers are rarely ordinary, law-abiding citizens, and they are also rarely mentally ill. Violence is a product of compromised anger management skills.

In a summary of studies on murder and prior record of violence, Don Kates and Gary Mauser found that 80 to 90 percent of murderers had prior police records, in contrast to 15 percent of American adults overall. In a study of domestic murderers, 46 percent of the perpetrators had had a restraining order against them at some time. Family murders are preceded by prior domestic violence more than 90 percent of the time. Violent crimes are committed by people who lack the skills to modulate anger, express it constructively, and move beyond it.....
​