If said people are a part of a well-regulated militia, sure. I don’t know of many who are…oh wait, I know of none because militias in the terms the founders would define don’t exist anymore. The closest thing is the National Guard.
But yeah, whatever the courts say is always right and never wrong. So militias are all people, corporations are people, and a collection of cells are people. But veterans coming home from war? Nope, get a job slackers. Can’t afford a home? Live on the streets, slackers. Oh homelessness is illegal now? Time for prison, slackers.
If said people are a part of a well-regulated militia, sure
This is the exact misconception I was talking about.
The militia consists of the "whole body of the people". We know this from various contemporary writings, including descriptions in the Federalist Papers. We know how the term was used in the constitution, and we know it was used to refer to "We The People".
In the constitution, it is always referred to as a singular entity. It is never referred to in the plural: there are no such thing as "militias"; there is only one "militia".
You mentioned the National Guard. In constitutional terms, the National Guard would be a "[provision] for calling forth the militia" (Article I, Section 8, part 15). The members of the national guard haven't been called forth to the militia. They have been called forth from the militia. This becomes obvious when we look at the other major provision for calling forth the militia: Selective Service. The Draft.
Congress's authority to institute a draft, compelling "We The People" to report for military training and service against our individual will comes from their power to "call forth" the militia. We are members of the militia, and we are called forth. We are called forth from the militia, not to it. Congress would have no power to draft us if we were not members of the militia, and subject to their provisions established under the militia clauses. Which means that We The People are, in fact, the militia described in Article I and the Second Amendment.
If you don't feel you and your fellow militiamen are adequately "well regulated", you should petition Congress to impose more requirements than what they currently deem necessary and proper regulation of the militia, and I'll see you at the next muster.
What you describe is an interpretation that the courts have laid out, nothing more. And the point I make is that the courts are many times wrong. And in this case, it is wrong. One aspect is that women were not called to (sorry) FROM militia. Yet women are afforded this right today, yes? So a single woman prior to the courts' various opinions over the centuries would not have such a right, since they would not be a part of the militia -- thus, the founders did not intend on it being every person. In fact, women were not even considered full citizens then since they did not possess the right to vote. Then there's the subject of slaves which I have no interest in diving into since that's an even bigger can of worms.
The point is that interpretations is what has won, not original intent. You can hand-wave this as a misconception all you want, but there is logic in it. And that logic is that the Constitution was designed to change over time solely because the founders could not envision the future state of existence, only lay the groundwork for such. Therefore as the second amendment is written, women at minimum should not have this right because, even today, they cannot be drafted -- by your own statements: "the militia: Selective Service. The Draft."
So a single woman prior to the courts' various opinions over the centuries would not have such a right, since they would not be a part of the militia
What you are describing are the provisions Congress has made under their authority in Article I. They have created a legislative definition of "militia" (10 USC 246) that is restricted to male citizens. Female national guardsmen are the only women that fit within this legislative definition.
I think we can agree that Congress is fully empowered to change its legislative definition. We would probably agree that the current definition is unconstitutionally sexist and ageist. Congress could change their age limit from 45 to 60, and remove their "male" limitation. They could expand their definition to include a very, very broad range of people, if they wanted to. They probably couldn't expand it to include 8-year-old kids or quadriplegics; the court would probably rule that sending kids and severely handicapped people to war is unconstitutional, but they can certainly include far more people in that legislative definition than they actually did.
Constitutional rights do not originate from legislature, and cannot be revoked by the legislature. Congress can, indeed, change the legislative definition of "militia", but they cannot change the constitutional meaning except through an amendment.
So, if Congress could rewrite its definition and compel women to register for the draft tomorrow, then women were members of the "Well Regulated Militia" yesterday, and 200 years ago. Congress's failure to provide for calling forth female members of the "well-regulated militia" has zero impact on the rights guaranteed by 2A.
Go back to Article I, Section 8, and perform that same substitution. Replacing "Militia" with "People" does not change the meaning of Article I in the slightest.
The term "militia" was used in the second amendment specifically to reference the militia clauses in Article I. If Article I had referred to "Yeomanry" or "Snorglubben", the Second Amendment would have used those terms instead.
Which arguably makes the AR-15 one of the most protected guns, if we're using the wording of the second amendment as the only justification for firearms rights.
You can do a lot of damage with medium caliber rifles running internal clips. Such a limit would be more than enough for a militia unless everyone is practicing their tactical magazine changes and fireteam movement drills.
They are good hunting rifles for feral hogs actually, 30 round mags included.
Plus, banning certain magazine sizes or particular models of rifle isn't really going to fix anything, but things like universal background checks would probably help.
Truly "Universal" background checks are just a way of criminalizing the overwhelming majority of "transfers" between known and trusted parties. We don't need this sort of "universal" background check. This approach is only intended to cast FUD on ownership.
The current law basically says it is illegal to "knowingly" transfer a gun to a prohibited person. The problem is that there is no reliable, publicly-accessible means for a private individual to "know" that an individual is prohibited. NICS checks are not available to the public; they are only available to FFL dealers. So long as the recipient doesn't disclose their prohibited status, it is basically impossible to prove a private seller "knew" the buyer was prohibited.
The solution should be obvious: establish a means of publicly accessing NICS. Have the buyer perform a check in themselves, and provide the seller with a verification code to securely and confidentially access the results of that check.
With that access in place, a seller can know, and can legally be expected to know the status of a buyer. The "knowingly" criteria can now be presumed to have been met, and willful ignorance on the part of the seller is no longer a viable defense.
This approach makes it possible to prosecute 100% of private sellers who transfer to felons, without criminalizing any innocent transfers. It accomplishes every legitimate purpose of "universal" background checks, without any of the harmful, "unintended" FUD that truly universal checks would impose.
Nope. Because you can know and trust that felon white supremacist militia man all day. The rest of us would very much like to prevent them from getting a gun ever again. And the honesty system obviously isn't working.
Hoping people just use the system isn't any better either.
Requiring an FFL to be part of all transfers and keeping the records solves this. And black helicopter paranoia isn't a good reason to not do it.
Nope. Because you can know and trust that felon white supremacist
If I handed a gun to that individual today, without knowing he was a felon, I would be exonerated: I didn't know.
If I did it tomorrow, after NICS checks are made available to the public, I would be convicted: I should have known. My claim of ignorance no longer exonerates me. My claim of ignorance is now an admission of guilt: I could have known, I should have known, I was responsible for knowing, and I failed to perform my due diligence and duty.
Requiring an FFL to be part of all transfers and keeping the records solves th
Define "transfer".
When my neighbor says he's feeling low and needs me to take custody of his guns for awhile, does he need to conduct a background check to give them to me? Or can I walk over and take care of them? If I am injured in a car crash, can I hand my gun to my sister before the ambulance takes me to the hospital?
My brother and I both have Glock 17 handguns. We used them at the range. A few weeks later, I looked at the serial number on my gun and realized we had swapped them. Should we both be jailed?
The punishment for violating this "universal" background check requirement is going to have to be a simple fine at most; anything more is going to be an egregious miscarriage of justice in all of these cases and in virtually every scenario in which it could be applied. It will be treated about the same as failing to renew a driver's license or vehicle registration; a purely administrative offense.
Your mentality of treating guns as "NBD" is the real issue here. Guns have been dumbed down and ingrained so heavily into our society, that you almost jokingly say how you "switched guns at one point".
All of that absolutely should be illegal. And we shouldn't be so careless with our weapons, as you make it sound so normal to have done.
You're going to have to explain how my brother's Glock 17 is somehow a significant threat to public safety in my hands, while my own Glock 17 is perfectly safe.
While you're contemplating that, try this one on for size: under a "universal" system, a felon in possession of a gun cannot be charged for transferring to another felon. There is case law on this point, relating to felons failing to register firearms. The state cannot compel an individual to admit to or to commit a crime. Requiring FFL involvement constitutes either self incrimination or entrapment should the felon attempt to make the transfer through them, so he cannot be prosecuted for failing to use one.
Under my scheme, however, the seller's status is entirely irrelevant. The state merely needs to prove the seller made the transfer and the buyer was prohibited. The seller could know, and should know the buyer's status, and is criminally liable for not checking. A felon-seller can be charged both for simple possession and for transferring to another felon.
The danger is you being so non-chalant about your weapons that you do not realize you have just swapped them. There are a billion scenarios in which doing so gets you arrested even today with current laws.
You can act as tough and mighty as you'd like, but viewing guns in this way, and acting so non-chalant about them is how people get killed.
There are a billion scenarios in which doing so gets you arrested even today with current laws.
There probably are. But that wasn't the question. The question was about the danger to the public in this specific scenario. The only difference is the serial number. What significantly greater danger is the public in from the differing inscriptions stamped into our receivers?
The correct and obvious answer is, of course, "none at all", which is why I raised the point to begin with. The fact that I could be "arrested even today with current laws" demonstrates that such laws are not actually enhancing public safety, and should be adjusted so that they don't criminalize completely inoffensive acts.
And how is the government going to know you handed them the gun?
The guns go to an FFL for storage. And if you can't keep track of your guns then they should absolutely be removed from you. Get a paint marker if you need to. It's what the Army does.
What public safety concern are you mitigating in any of the scenarios I described? What impediments to public safety are you creating when you impose your mandates?
How do the guns get to the FFL? If I take them, the transfer has already occurred. The only available method with a "universal" system is for my neighbor to take them himself.
Yes, that's the idea. If your neighbor wants to give you guns, they take them to an FFL and then you pick them up after the FFL runs your background check. Or the FFL can just store them. At no point should guns transfer between people without a record that is permanently kept.
And the problem with what you're suggesting is if you give your guns to Billy Bob the terrorist, and he never tells anyone where he got them from then you aren't even getting a knock at the door. There's not even a case for you to defend yourself in. If you happen to have a particularly new gun which still has records then you can just say you "lost it" which is another loophole we need to fix. Losing a gun needs to be a crime that results in forfeiting the right to own guns.
This blasé attitude about guns for the sake of preventing a hypothetical tyrannical crack down needs to die and never be brought back.
Do me a favor and run your little plan by a mental health professional, a social worker, a paramedic, a 14-year-old babysitter... The moment you left those guns in the hands of my emotionally distraught neighbor for even a second after he asked for help, you lost this particular argument.
There are decent arguments for a UBC; you're not making them. You should be focusing on what few public safety benefits would actually arise. You should be drawing attention away from the myriad administrative clusterfuck issues where UBCs fail, and toward those few scenarios where UBCs would actually benefit public safety. You should be conceding that "Universal" is completely impractical. You should be pointing out that none of the proposed "U"BC plans have ever actually been truly "U", and that all of them have included broad exceptions in a (piss-poor) attempt to avoid many of the problems I've described.
No. If they want to surrender their firearms they can do so to an FFL or a police station. I'm very familiar with mental health stuff and having access to the guns in any way shape or form is extremely dangerous. That includes at places you frequent. The option is not, you taking them or nothing. Load them all in your car with your buddy and drive down to the local range. Arrange for storage there and leave them in the storage.
If you want to have guns you have to have the responsibility too. Kid time with the deadly weapons is over.
you want to have guns you have to have the responsibility too.
No, you don't get to make that argument. Not after you try to make me a criminal for trying to take such responsibility. You're continuing to make the same mistakes. Argue better.
You're not a criminal for doing that under the current laws. And I straight up gave you the answer to the quiz for when it happens under UBC. You're just trying to be outraged at this point.
TBH, I would not trust a .223 to take down a hog intent on fucking me up. If feral hogs were a threat, I'd want a semi-auto .308 or similar larger more powerful round.
10mm carbine would be good too if they aren't too far, but most farmers tend to hunt them from relative safety in a stand or even from a helicopter sometimes: 5.56 is a popular choice but that might be in part because it's pretty ubiquitous in the states.
I call this the Jimmy Neutron paradox. He was always able to save the town at the end of the episode, but every issue the town had was because Jimmy Neutron caused it. First episode he invented smart pants that put themselves on. They go crazy and take over the town...
I understand your position but I think you’re wrong. Fascists always, without exception, need a “charismatic” leader like the Nazis with Hitler or the Russians with Putin.
There’s currently only Trump who can fill that role.
It’s of course possible that another such person appears out of nowhere, but I don’t see anyone on their side.
Trump was a TV star and tacky racist celeb (birthed) since the 80s. His brand isn’t new, he build it over a long time.
Who do you think would fill his shoes if yesterday’s attempt had succeeded? There’s no one.
Raegan was a similar character previously. I don't doubt they will arise again. Certainly, there are many Republicans with the same reactionary politics.
After thinking about this REALLY REALLY HARD...offing him will do nothing to stop the creep of facism. You have an entire party now aligned with the idealogices that the 3rd Reich had. And it's the entire party. MAGA killed the GOP after they got rid of Cheney. You cut one head off and 3 more will pop up identical to him...with vindication. Its going to be a yearly struggle and I'm afraid we won't be able to hold them back forever.
After thinking about this REALLY REALLY HARD…offing him will do nothing to stop the creep of [fascism]
Who would step in to replace Trump? Trump has worked hard to discredit anybody who could potentially challenge him. Strongmen often groom a son to take over for them, but only after they've been in power for many years. Trump might want Junior to take over, but I doubt even Trump's hand-picked yes-men would accept Junior at this point.
Instead you'd almost certainly get a power vacuum with various Republican factions trying to take over.
You cut one head off and 3 more will pop up
And those 3 would start snapping at each-other trying to become the dominant head. And, as long as they're distracted snapping at each-other, they're not going to be focusing on us.
IMO, Trump is also the only thing holding this right-wing coalition together. As soon as he's gone the factions are going to turn on each-other. The bad thing is that they've already shown that they're going to get violent when they feel their grip on power is slipping. I'm sure this assassination attempt is going to lead to right-wing violence, and if it had succeeded it would have been a lot more violence.
The most dangerous thing about Trump is that he's he's got almost half the US behind him. There are probably more cruel Republicans, and probably some who would be more effective at implementing their cruel policies. But, not many who would be able to get so much support and keep the coalition together.
The Republican base is getting smaller each year as old people die. It's not a popular platform with the younger voters. If the US can avoid a Trump win this year, the MAGA version of the Republican party will probably fall apart. Then it will be back to the regular corporatocracy that the US has been dealing with for decades. If he does win... well I'm glad I don't live in the US.
There was a time when America could reliably produce assassins who could kill both presidential candidates and even sitting presidents. What the he'll happened? Deindustralization? Too much porn and video games?
Radicalization of ideologies is my bet. Radicals on both sides scream that the other side is evil which creates something broken in the easily influenced. Hell there's even some radicals that believe that Trump needed to be killed to stop him. And thanks to this person, Trumps side is only bolstered.
I'm sure the next thing we will see is finger pointing. However whoever is going to read this and wants to hear some wisdom from a fellow random internet stranger; let this guy stand alone. Do not blame the other side or accuse them of wild theories or accusations. If you do go radical, the situation is only going to get worse
I mean, ye can psycho-analyze the nation for all ye want, but they're merely symptoms of the material conditions and environment the nation has been built in
I think people are placing too much on this. Being registered is just sending a piece of mail with a checkbox checked, I think. You don't even have to donate or anything. I registered as a Republican to vote in their primaries a long time ago, and I have literally never voted for a Republican candidate for any office.
Inb4 Republican conspiracy that Biden told his secret service to intentionally lapse security in order to assassinate Trump. If you thought Benghazi conspiracies were bad…
The people mad at Nazis are really shrill, just like the Nazis. So they must be equally wrong. Right?
And yes we really are dealing with fascists at the moment, please be serious instead of grasping for some 'juuust becaaause' excuse as to why someone would make the comparison. They are comparable. That's why. The Idiot has openly opined about being a dictator (just a little! just the tip!) after instigating a failed coup that saw every elected member of the federal government besides him cowering in a basement because an angry mob stormed the goddamn capitol. That's not counting the other coup d'etat efforts, like extorting allies for foreign interference, secretly calling governors to just make up numbers, or indeed sending fake electors to make up the numbers himself. The GOP's publicly-stated policy goals include criminalizing queer identities, banning birth control, and seeking revenge on anyone who's not personally loyal to dear leader. I don't give a shit if you might think they wouldn't succeed in these efforts. The fact they want that, and are openly talking about trying to do it, is what makes them fascists.
Memes
Heiß
Dieses Magazin erhält keine Updates (letzte Aktivität vor 0 Tage(n)).