We must restore the 2nd Amendment to its original intent

[Marius25]

4 mass shootings today in less than 24 hours. Scalia and the Republicans' absolute butchering of the 2nd Amendment has massively damaged this country.

But we all know, there is no way we're getting a new Amendment.

So, our best chance to change the Constitution is what Republicans are doing with things like Roe. Reinterpret the Constitution.

If we can get a majority of pro gun law Dems on the Supreme Court, we can have them overturn Heller and restore the 2nd Amendment to the original intent, which included heavy restrictions on guns.

Here is an interesting read on how the Founders and Colonies viewed gun laws when the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Registration required. No general open or concealed carry allowed. No loaded weapons in the home. No stand your ground laws. And a loyalty oath was required.

https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

[elleng]

1. We SHOULD have, a long time ago.

Chief Justice Burger said:

https://www.facebook.com/brutamerica/videos/1879745598990617/

[3catwoman3]

2. If we are going to be originalists, the only guns allowed...

...should be those that existed when the Constitution was written. Let everybody have all the front loading muskets they want.

[MichMan]

27. First Amendment no longer applies to tv, radio.and the internet then.

[nuxvomica]

92. Or money.

The idea that money is speech (Buckley v Valeo) is absurd.

[Hoyt]

30. The gun-humpers - who are the real problem -- will say there were quill pens

back then, no TV or internet, no airplanes, etc., in an attempt to keep their friggin gunz.

Gonna take something different short-term..

[delisen]

3. Thanks for posting this great analysis. nt

[SoCalDavidS]

4. ZERO Chance nt

[WarGamer]

5. Call a Constitutional Convention and do it then.

Or replace a few GOP Judges.

[jmowreader]

7. You know what would happen if we did that

The RW trolls would build a Constitution that turns the US into Afghanistan with less sand. The required number of states to ratify it would never happen. Fox News, Newsmax and OANN would complain about the traitorous Democrats that stopped America from getting the Constitution it really needs. And on and on and on and on...

[WarGamer]

10. Correct... we need to be 2 or more countries... we're broken.

[gab13by13]

6. It is really mind boggeling,

how they twisted the definition of well regulated militias. The militias enforced laws for the federal government. I live in Pa. and it was militias who put down the Whiskey rebellion.

If people believe a dog is a cat or that a militia is a check on the federal government someone should be able to fix the definition.

[live love laugh]

22. Definition: "military... raised from the civil population to supplement regular army in emergency."

Also:

“A military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.”


And:

“All able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.”

[Skittles]

49. LOL

"eligible" for service and actually serving are two entirely different things - most gun humpers I know would never have dreamed of serving their country

[LonePirate]

8. I disagree. We need to repeal the 2A and confiscate all guns.

That's the only solution no matter how unrealistic it may be.

[Calculating]

14. Which will never happen so it's pointless to even consider it

...

[LonePirate]

23. The same was thought in relation to travelling to the moon. Have to start on that path.

[asa4ever]

86. There isn't any comparison.

[Hoyt]

31. That is ultimate solution. But will take decades, maybe a century. Start now.

[Skittles]

41. ridiculous

[LonePirate]

42. What's your solution then? Shrugging our shoulders from the inevitability of these shootings?

[Skittles]

43. search "common sense gun laws"

anything but the repuke open carry fucking crap advocated by the so-called "pro-life" party

[MarineCombatEngineer]

57. So, IOW, civil war.

[LiberatedUSA]

89. Who will be doing the confiscating?

Will the job have life insurance? Will you see the irony in using “weapons of war” to forcefully take guns? Being against gun violence and police brutality while using gun violence and cops to go door to door?

If you start with a 100 door knockers for one town, how many will be left alive before the job is done, when word gets out and pro gun neighborhoods set up kill boxes for the door knocking teams?

[OAITW r.2.0]

9. Seemed like armories and drilling were core concepts of the 2nd Amendment.

Why not have lots of local armories where weapons are stored? Offer a free shooting range for training. When you want to sign out the weapon, you explain the need. Hunting? Sure. But return to armory when mission completed.

If Indians or the British decide to attack us, the armories will be open for all citizens to engage with the external enemy who threatens our country.

[Calculating]

16. How am I supposed to fend off a home invasion?

If my guns are in the armory?

[USALiberal]

18. You've had a lot of those I assume? Nt

[herding cats]

33. Of course they haven't.

But, that mentality is now baked into the dialogue. There are tens of millions of people who believe that they have to defend their life and personal property with a firearm. They believe it to the core of their being. Even when the vast majority has never needed such an option. The minority of those who did need to are magnified via our current social media, and internet connected lives and reality is distorted to fit the narrative.

It's not an easy fix.

[EX500rider]

40. Not exactly unknown or very rare event

According to a United States Department of Justice report:
38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions.
Over 2,000,000 homes will experience a break-in or burglary this year.
There are over 4,500 home burglaries per day in the United States.
The average number of home invasions per year was 1,030,000 between 1994 and 2010.

[hack89]

87. No they weren't

People brought their own weapons to drill - they were not issued guns by the government. The armories were to store gunpowder and artillery.

[VarryOn]

11. "No loaded weapons in the home."

I'm open to debates on concealed and open carry. However, I'm prepared for someone to break into my occupied home. No mercy.

[USALiberal]

17. I'm not that paranoid.

I’m not that paranoid.

[VarryOn]

19. I'm far from paranoid. I'm over 50...

And never once been frightened over an intruder, or as I often told my son, a tornado. But, I'm prepared for either. It doesn't require being a goof-ball whacko. And, I'd have no problem killing someone breaking in. Where I live, it would be extremely unusual for an intruder.

[Hoyt]

32. Toters are a serious problem. A reasonable compromise is for people to

be allowed to keep a very FEW gunz at home for hunting (for the few percent who still hunt) and home-defense in unlikely even it’s necessary. No tricked out gunz, limited ammo, assault style weapons aren’t considered home-defense, etc.

Almost no toting should be allowed

[VarryOn]

34. I don't understand...

I speak American English.

[Hoyt]

48. You speak Gunner, and believe in gunz, that's your - and America's -- problem.

[Srkdqltr]

12. Good luck putting that genie back in the bottle.

[sop]

13. The latest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:

Americans have the right to bear arms so they can overthrow an oppressive, tyrannical government. And any attempt to take away their guns just reinforces this belief.

[Marius25]

20. Which an analysis of the colonies proved was never in consideration

which is why people had to take a loyalty Oath and the colonies had large scale disarmament during the Revolution.

[NotTodayPutin]

25. I'm a bit confused by your post.

The Brits disarmed the colonists? Or after independence the states disarmed their citizens?

[hack89]

94. They disarmed people that were actively supporting the Crown during an ongoing war

that is not an issue now, is it?

[USALiberal]

15. It will never happen, no way would anyone ever be able to get that passed! Nt

[Marius25]

21. All it takes is 5 liberal Supreme court justices.

[herding cats]

29. Which requires decades of Dems showing up and voting for any Dem rabidly.

That's never gonna happen, even if it's what the GOP managed to do to us. They owned their base like bosses and here we are today. Decades after they started this campaign they've beaten the living crap out of us.

We really are like herding cats, we scatter to the fore winds at the least irritant and are more than happy to turn on each other and scratch our brethren's eyes out for any slight we perceive. Be damned the consequences down the road.

If you can tell me how to remedy this massive problem, I'm all ears.

[Skittles]

39. look what six fucking "pro-life" nutcases on the SC did

but Dems are told over and over NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT GUNS

[Amishman]

51. also takes a total sea change in law enforcement - specially outside of cities

A reinterpretation of the 2nd, followed by major gun reform, would run into major challenges and nullification at the state and local level.

It will take the death of US gun culture to make major headway.

[MerryHolidays]

24. There is NO need to repeal the 2nd Amendment

It is there for a reason. And that requires an answer as to "what is that reason?"

It is absolutely absurd to say that 2nd Amendment is without any limitation. For example, people are not allowed to carry guns on planes, in schools, or in government buildings. Also, people are not allowed to buy nuclear or biological "arms" off the street.

The key to the 2nd Amendment is how one interprets it (and who is doing the interpretation). The RWNJs are trying to make us believe that even a baby can have an automatic weapon. DO NOT FALL FOR IT.

Similarly, the 1st Amendment on "freedom of speech" has numerous reasonable restrictions. For example, companies are not allowed to engage in deceptive advertising or to engage in securities fraud.

The RWNJs have taken arguments like "freedom of speech" and "the right to bear arms" as if they are absolute rights. They are not. And there is absolutely no need to amend the Constitution to see that.

[krispos42]

26. Yeah, because making gun control the party platform has just worked out so well for us.

The Democratic Party has been embracing as its signature gun-control effort a ban on "assault weapons" for 30 years. For 30 years, Democrats have, by and large, been forced to go on TV in a variety of venues and say reality-devoid statements that a child can see through. It's because national Democrats seized on an alternative crime-control platform for the 1992 election and the dumb and ineffective brain storm of a couple of California state legislators was part of it.

And while a certain percentage of the country hates private gun ownership and private gun owners and will support any gun-control measure regardless of ineffectiveness or stupidity as long as it pisses off Republicans, a much larger percentage of the country either doesn't care or sees Democratic party saying and doing stupid shit that ruins our credibility!

People that own guns know about guns. Shocker, I know. And when Democrats say stupid things like "pistol grips turn rifles into death machines that must be banned!!!!", our credibility goes out the window. "Well, gee, if Democrats are wrong about this physical thing that I own, how can they be right on abstract issues like the economy?"

We're in this boat because Dolt45 won the electoral college. He won the electoral college because in a handful of states, his voters were more motivated to vote than Hillary Clinton's. His voters were worried about HRC passing new gun-control laws AS STATED IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM.

Yeah, there were other reasons she lost; if Comey had kept his mouth shut, or Hillary had scheduled a few rallies in the Great Lakes region, she probably would have won. Barely. Against an orange clown of a human being that is obviously corrupt, self-centered, greedy, and ignorant.

But this issue, which is a fundamentally flawed and ineffective idea, affects not only the presidential races, but also Federal and State elections. We lost the House in 1994, and have been going back-and-forth ever since. We've been under-performing in Senate races. Ohio went from a tossup to something that's reliable Republican. We lost the presidency because of 537 votes in Florida; if 269 out of MILLIONS of voters had voted for Gore instead, he would have won, and Dubya's SCOTUS picks would have been liberals instead of conservatives. 26 states have majority-Republican House delegations, which may be a BIG FUCKING DEAL in 2024 as Republicans try to steal the presidency for the Fat Donnie.

Everybody seems to agree that the Democrats have lost the rural states for the foreseeable future but nobody seems to be making the connection between the party plank and this issue. Democrats have a fiction-based signature gun-control plan, they've been wedded to it for so long they refuse to even consider divorcing it, and they keep losing ground in rural parts of the country.

Banning assault weapons is not a winning strategy. It hasn't worked, it isn't working, and it will never work. It can't work, for a variety of reasons. It has always been a political stunt designed to garner votes by bringing new ideas to the table, and it maybe worked once, for Bill Clinton in 1992.

[Dial H For Hero]

37. Excellent post. Sadly, it will be completely ignored by the vast majority here.

[Skittles]

38. so, what, we wait until there are 100 mass shootings a day?

Last edited Mon May 16, 2022, 12:24 AM - Edit history (2)

GUNS ARE A HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM IN AMERICA - you're suggesting nothing can be done because it might offend the "PRO-LIFE" party?

and by the way, MISOGYNY was the biggest reason Hillary lost - she was held to impossible standards while the white male ASS CLOWN was held to NO STANDARDS AT ALL (yet she STILL whooped him in the popular vote, without RUSSIA on her side)

[Dial H For Hero]

45. What is your legislative proposal that can actually be passed and survive constitutional scrutiny?

[sop]

50. We've had a lot of gun control laws passed since 1934:

Last edited Mon May 16, 2022, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

- The first national gun control legislation was passed in 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) was part of FDR's “New Deal for Crime." The NFA regulated short-barrel shotguns and rifles, machine guns and silencers (or suppressors).

- The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 required gun manufacturers, importers, and dealers to obtain a federal firearms license, defined groups of people, like convicted felons, who could not purchase guns, and mandated that gun sellers keep customer records.

- In 1939, United States v. Miller ruled Congress could regulate the interstate selling of a short barrel shotgun, stating there was no evidence sawed off shotguns have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” and thus “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

- After JFK, RFK and MLK were assassinated, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed. The GCA added language about “destructive devices," like bombs, mines and grenades, and expanded the definition of “machine gun.” It banned importing guns that have “no sporting purpose,” imposed age restrictions for the purchase of handguns (gun owners had to be 21), prohibited felons, the mentally ill, and others from purchasing guns, required that all manufactured or imported guns have a serial number, and according to the ATF, imposed “stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry.”

- The Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed in 1986. The law enacted protections for gun owners, prohibiting a national registry of dealer records, limiting ATF inspections to once per year (unless there are multiple infractions), softening what is defined as “engaging in the business” of selling firearms, and allowing licensed dealers to sell firearms at “gun shows” in their state.

- The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, passed by Clinton, requires background checks before a gun purchases from a licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer, and established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), maintained by the FBI.

- The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by Clinton in 1994, known as the assault weapons ban, was a ten-year prohibition on such weapons, also banning magazines of more than ten rounds. The act was not renewed by Bush II in 2004.

- In 2005, the Tiahrt Amendment prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information. “The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny,” The Washington Post wrote in 2010. “It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.”

- In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was signed by George W. Bush to prevent gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.

- In 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller changed a nearly 70-year precedent set by Miller in 1939. While the Miller ruling focused on the “well regulated militia” portion of the 2nd Amendment, Heller focused on the “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” Heller challenged the constitutionality of a 32-year-old handgun ban in D.C., finding “The handgun ban... violate(d) the Second Amendment.”

Many new measures could be passed that would survive scrutiny. The first would be to repeal the PLCAA of 2005, immunizing the gun industry from legal liability. Congress could also close the gun show loophole, ban large capacity magazines, or even ban all semi-automatic handguns and rifles. They could also outlaw the sale of body armor, certain types of ammunition, suppressors, bump stocks and other equipment.

Problem is, for purely political reasons Congress' legislative focus shifted around 1986 and 2004 from protecting the public to protecting the "rights" of gun owners. At the urging of the NRA, Republicans have been busy weakening gun laws, and Congress has not exhibited the political will to make the needed changes to our gun laws.

[krispos42]

52. How about we get and stay in power so we can make positive changes to society?

There's a idea! But it doesn't run through the magical land of make believe.

Guns exist, gun will continue to exist. These lone-wolf terrorists will carry out their asshattery WITH or WITHOUT a rifle with a pistol grip!

Their flowchart of terrorism doesn't include a decision box that says "Do I have an AR-15? If yes, continue to random location and shoot random people. If no, go home and play video games".

Their behavior is not being driven by a particular type of hardware. They will do it regardless. It is not a hardware issue and to hope that some new ban will help is foolishness.

The cold hard fact is that Democrats seem to have as much a fetish for banning scary-looking guns as Republicans have for owning them. Democrats have been wedded to the idea for over 30 years now and it has done NOTHING to help anybody. Nothing. Well, it has made Republicans damn sure that Democrats are "coming for their guns" and they get to use that every two years in their campaigns!

Oh, and it's driven up gun sales, too.



(if the picture link looks broken, right-click and hit "view image" )

For a policy position that's suppose to reduce the number of guns in America, it sure is backfiring.

And sometimes problems don't have any effective answer. Lone-wolf terrorism is one of them!

[leftstreet]

46. +1

[former9thward]

28. I followed the links from the OP.

Did you? They do not back up the points raised. For example in the registration section there is nothing at all about that.

[Polybius]

35. What good will that do?

Sure, some cities will ban handguns, but they'll still be widely available in most states.

[Skittles]

36. needs to be rewritten so PARANOID ASSHOLES can understand

yes indeed

[48656c6c6f20]

44. It's too hard

We can only do the easy things now. Like getting used to violent killing sprees. Sort of lay back and enjoy it.

[walkingman]

47. I wonder if the love for seemingly all things gun related is generational. I know

I have always owned guns and even use them for varmints when necessary (live in rural Texas) but I am totally behind reasonable gun control.

[uponit7771]

53. Easy, Title II all PGR (Pistol Grip Rifles) ... no ban just register who has them

[Dial H For Hero]

54. Why restrict pistol grips? A Mini-14 and Ar-15 are functionally identical.

[uponit7771]

55. This is false

[Dial H For Hero]

58. How so? Same cartridge, velocity, magazine capacity, rate of fire...

[MarineCombatEngineer]

60. His statement makes no sense at all, unless the poster is ignorant of firearms. nt

[uponit7771]

63. ... of course you didn't list the differences IE the ad hom. But I've asked anyway

[MarineCombatEngineer]

65. They both FUNCTION the same exact way,

as DHfO stated, so I have no clue as to what you're on about.

[uponit7771]

67. This is false on its face, ... hint: VPC has done the studies and the history and the ...

... we could go on but you get the message.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

69. I don't give a fuck what the VPC has studied,

I've shot numerous firearms, in and out of the Marines, I've shot/field stripped both the AR-15 and the Mini Ranch 14 and they are both identical functionally, so, no, I don't get the message.

I wouldn't trust anything the VPC or the NRA says about anything firearm related, and neither should you.

[uponit7771]

70. Yeah, "fuck facts: ... that's a winning argument after ad homs. Come on man I don't believe ...

... you don't see no "functional" differences between the two weapons.

https://www.vpc.org/studies/hosesix.htm

And facts DUE matter

Here's just ONE functional difference between PGR and straight stock outlined by the progressive advocacy group VPC.

Do assault weapons really encourage "spray firing"? Gun industry apologists also disparage the use of such terms as "spray firing" and "shooting from the hip" to describe the deadly capabilities of assault weapons. But, as was explained earlier, "spray and pray" was exactly the point of developing assault weapons. And the following illustrations show graphically how specific assault weapons features allow a "point-and-shoot" grip and help control recoil so the shooter can "hose down" a wide area with a lethal "spray" of bullets.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

71. FUNCTIONAL, AS IN THEY OPERATE THE SAME EXACT WAY.

When you present facts, then I'll listen, until then learn how the AR and Mini operate and get back to me when you have facts instead of VPC "facts".

I think it's safe to say I have far more experience using/knowing firearms than anyone at the VPC, or you for that matter.

VPC? NRA

[uponit7771]

74. This is also false, the poster said they're "functionally identical" and they're not. A sword and a

... knife both have sharp edges but aren't "functionally identical".

Come on man, we both can believe gun violence advocacy experts facts posted ... I don't see where they're wrong enough to change the argument presented.

If you got an issue with the article bring it up, ... come now let us reason together.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

75. They are FUNCTIONALLY identical,

the innards operate the same exact way, they use the same exact round, this isn't about looks, it's about how they function/operate.

I'm sorry you seem unable to grasp that fact, which, in my experience and mind, tells me that either you are wholly ignorant on how they operate or you're being deliberately obtuse, but, whatever, carry on, but you'll do it without me.

Have a great night.

[uponit7771]

76. You narrowed my position to "innards" not me and straight stock vs pgr isn't just "looks" ...

... that's an NRA position that shouldn't be proffered on DU.

Gun experts show a straight stock and PG on a rifle operate differently not me, facts do matter

[MarineCombatEngineer]

77. .....

... that's an NRA position that shouldn't be proffered on DU.

Ah yes, when bested, throw the NRA position bullshit.

Bye Bye.

[uponit7771]

78. Facts matter no? tia (quote)

...As a result, gun manufacturers have simply eliminated these "bells and whistles" from their civilian assault weapon designs, while keeping the lethal design factors—high-capacity magazines and pistol grips—that make assault weapons so deadly.

[uponit7771]

61. ... and differences? tia

[MarineCombatEngineer]

59. Why is this false?

They both us the same caliber, they fire at the same rate, so, again, why is that false?

[uponit7771]

62. ... and differences? tia

[MarineCombatEngineer]

64. Poster said that the functionality of both are the same, not how they look. nt

[uponit7771]

66. So ... is this your "functional" differences list? tia

[MarineCombatEngineer]

68. So, once again,

how was Dial H For Hero's post false?

[Dial H For Hero]

80. Some people seem to think that sticking to a demonstrably incorrect position is better than

admitting that they made a mistake.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

82. A perfect example as in this case.

Obviously doesn't know crap about firearms or is being deliberately obtuse, my bet is both.

[Dial H For Hero]

83. Citing the VPC regarding the "deadliness" of pistol grips is quite the stretch as well.

They assert that such grips enable hip firing, which they seem to think is more effective than actually, y’know, aiming.

One wonders what their explanation would be for the fact that the US army trains our troops to aim.

[ripcord]

88. This is why shooters call the AWB the scarey looking weapon ban nt

[FakeNoose]

56. If they can strike down Roe v Wade on a technicality

... then anything is game, including the 2nd Amendment interpretations.

Or should I say, the 2nd Amendment mis-interpretations?

[mvd]

72. The only thing I am convinced of is..

that a total gun ban likely isn’t possible in this country. A lack of gun control though just leads to even more guns. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

73. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

Yep, even Scalia said so in the Heller ruling.

[hunter]

79. The second amendment was bullshit and its always been bullshit.

It's one of those garbage things in our Constitution like the 3/5 person rule was.

[BusterMove]

81. So we can...must...all buy M4s and M16s and M9s as long as they're registered?

Registered with our local CO apparently.
And full capacity mags not an issue? Nice…I guess.

Would even keep the guns unloaded in the home. {But how would you know?}

[hack89]

84. What gun control laws is the 2A stopping?

AWBs, registration, magazine limits, storage requirements are all perfectly constitutional. According to the SC, the only right the 2A protects is the individual right to own a handgun in your home. That is it. Scalia even wrote in the Heller opinion that the 2A allows strict gun control

[maxsolomon]

85. It's original intent is an Anachronism.

"Well-regulated" doesn't even mean what it appears to mean.

Nothing will change; it's only getting worse. We have 400 million firearms circulating in this nation, and fanatic 2nd Am. absolutists liberalizing gun regulations everywhere.

There are clearly too many MENTALLY UNBALANCED MALES getting powerful weapons bordering on Military-grade when they are not responsible enough to possess them, and Gunners don't seem to give a shit.

[ripcord]

90. The problem is that the Heller interpretation has been in place for centuries

At no point in the history of our nation have individuals been banned from owning firearms.

[AntiFascist]

91. In related news...

DHS warns of threats against Supreme Court in wake of leaked draft Roe opinion

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement partners that there are potential threats to the public and members of the Supreme Court in response to the national abortion debate, including threats of burning down or storming the US Supreme Court and murdering justices and their clerks, members of Congress and lawful demonstrators.

A DHS memo warns that "domestic violence extremists and criminal actors have adopted narratives surrounding abortion rights to encourage violence, likely increasing the threat to government, religious, and reproductive healthcare personnel and facilities and ideological opponents."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/18/politics/supreme-court-threats-homeland-security/index.html

[SYFROYH]

93. Machine guns for everyone?