United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

[Bear Ribs]

The second ammendment needs to be abolished because the founding fathers never could have anticipated modern assault weapon ghost guns that can fire a 30 caliber magazine clip in half a second, this has tripled the casualty rate in conflicts and has made what some call a 'non stop warfare' effect. In addition too many guns nowadays have the shoulder things that go up, and that is terrifying.
Now that that the jokes are out of the way, how do you guys decipher "Shall not be infringed"?

Well, you need to understand that legal terms and common words people use every day might sound the same, but have a completely different meaning. This is especially true of the Constitution, due to lingual drift.

Now the founding fathers were mostly from Great Brittain so they would use British meanings of words. A "Fringe" in British slang is a style of bangs. So we can deduce that the Founding Fathers felt that people who wore their hair with bangs should not be allowed to own firearms. This was only sensible, as the important ruling class all wore their hair in wigs without bangs. Don't believe me? Pull out a one-dollar bill and you'll clearly see George Washington has no bangs. A hundred? Ben Franklin has no bangs. A Twenty? Jackson has a single strand that might, conceivably, be considered to be bangs but it's a stretcher, and besides he was a slave owner so his opinion doesn't count anyway.

So a logical interpretation of the 2nd amendment is actually that working-class Americans were forbidden to own any weapons, while people in a position of political power or wealth should be permitted to have them. This is in accordance with US history.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Well, you need to understand that legal terms and common words people use every day might sound the same, but have a completely different meaning. This is especially true of the Constitution, due to lingual drift.

Now the founding fathers were mostly from Great Brittain so they would use British meanings of words. A "Fringe" in British slang is a style of bangs. So we can deduce that the Founding Fathers felt that people who wore their hair with bangs should not be allowed to own firearms. This was only sensible, as the important ruling class all wore their hair in wigs without bangs. Don't believe me? Pull out a one-dollar bill and you'll clearly see George Washington has no bangs. A hundred? Ben Franklin has no bangs. A Twenty? Jackson has a single strand that might, conceivably, be considered to be bangs but it's a stretcher, and besides he was a slave owner so his opinion doesn't count anyway.

So a logical interpretation of the 2nd amendment is actually that working-class Americans were forbidden to own any weapons, while people in a position of political power or wealth should be permitted to have them. This is in accordance with US history.

The really sad part...idiots in the future will think this is seriously true.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The problem with the absolute rhetoric there is that it would support U.S. citizens having access to their own private nuclear weapons. . .

. . . but "the right to bear arms" would certainly extend to all arms that can be *borne*, i.e. any and all infantry weapons, and that is arguably *reinforced* by the part about militia -- arms suitable for a citizen militia are those covered.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Wouldn't 'privately owned nukes' not really work because it's a WMD? Same reason you probably aren't allowed to own a barrel of anthrax?
Although then that makes the question of "Why the fuck do we let the government own this shit when the relatively less dangerous populace aren't allowed it?"

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Wouldn't 'privately owned nukes' not really work because it's a WMD? Same reason you probably aren't allowed to own a barrel of anthrax?
Although then that makes the question of "Why the fuck do we let the government own this shit when the relatively less dangerous populace aren't allowed it?"

it's likely that the fissionable material would be regulated, as the radioactivity can be argued to be a health risk.

 

[Zachowon]

Nukes also fall under DoE

 

[S'task]

Same reason you probably aren't allowed to own a barrel of anthrax?

*cough* The one actual historically recorded use of Smallpox Blankets was from the French and Indian War... within the lifetime of many of the Founders and Framers (Washington, explicitly, served in it). So they might not have been as against private biological warfare as folks think.

 

[Bear Ribs]

The problem with the absolute rhetoric there is that it would support U.S. citizens having access to their own private nuclear weapons. . .

. . . but "the right to bear arms" would certainly extend to all arms that can be *borne*, i.e. any and all infantry weapons, and that is arguably *reinforced* by the part about militia -- arms suitable for a citizen militia are those covered.

This would fly in the face of the actual precedent the Founding Fathers set, specifically that they fully endorsed and expected private citizens to own top-of-the-line warships, explosives, and artillery. Fur traders commonly packed small cannons on their riverboats and the Constitution includes offering private ship of war owners letters of Marque and Reprisal in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

The arms they intended to guarantee went way, way beyond infantry weapons, and the citizen militia was expected to bring the temporal equivalent of their own battleships and tanks to the fight.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

*cough* The one actual historically recorded use of Smallpox Blankets was from the French and Indian War... within the lifetime of many of the Founders and Framers (Washington, explicitly, served in it). So they might not have been as against private biological warfare as folks think.

Awesome, hook me up with a plastic bag of black death and some syringes of weaponized E.Coli baby!

 

[S'task]

The arms they intended to guarantee went way, way beyond infantry weapons, and the citizen militia was expected to bring the temporal equivalent of their own battleships and tanks to the fight.

Ehh... not entirely true. There was no expectation that the militia would be able to support the cost of Ships of the Line, or even Frigates, which were the Battleships and Cruisers of the day. They did expect them to be able to support smaller patrol ships but even then in the period patrolling the coastlines was clearly seen as a Federal responsibility, not the militia's duty.

Evidence for these? Firstly the Constitution itself treats the Army and Navy differently. Article 1, Section 8 has two separate clauses for them. For the Army it states: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;". This clearly indicates that the Army was a temporary institution that was expected to be limited in scope with the militia being the primary infantry force. The Navy on the other hand is governed by the next clause: "To provide and maintain a Navy;". Full stop, no limits, Navy is meant to exist fully funded and supported by the Federal government, no real expectation of militia covering for it's responsibility. Even back in the 18th century the construction and maintenance of warships was a longer term project that they knew could not be handled by citizen militia, you needed dedicated professionals both to support and man such. And while the difference between a warship and an armed merchantman was closer than how different they are now, they were still dramatically different, with any dedicated warship of similar size easily outperforming an armed merchantman at war. Armed Merchantmen were more meant to dissuade piracy than be used in actual conflict.

As to the idea that the local coastal patrols were also not meant for the militia look to when the US Coast Guard was founded as the Revenue-Marine: 1790. Their main ship were small patrol craft known as "cutters" which carried only a small amount of smaller guns similar to what you're claiming militia would have been "expected" to support... except they were not because even the cost of building and maintaining cutters was well outside the financial abilitiy of most militias of the time.

Now a local militia WAS likely expected to have at least a few cannons for artillery support, but the vast focus of the militia was the infantry and small arms. While the Founders and Framers were all right with privately owned warships and cannon, they knew how expensive they actually were and had no expectation that the militia could support them, and you can see that via how they structured the Constitution and in the laws they passed in the late 18th century regarding those areas as opposed to how they handled the Army.

 

[Zyobot]

Anyway…

While it’s a bit dated, the contents are as relevant as ever and should be watched by way more people than just Shane’s usual fans:

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Anyway…

While it’s a bit dated, the contents are as relevant as ever and should be watched by way more people than just Shane’s usual fans:

Oh man it's annoying when people mention Australia as an example of working gun control, when every major gang is packed to the teeth with illegal firearms lmao. We find bloody kalashnikovs pretty regularly here despite them being very much illegal.

Not to mention the Port Arthur shooting having...Many many questionable things about it.

 

[Zyobot]

Oh man it's annoying when people mention Australia as an example of working gun control, when every major gang is packed to the teeth with illegal firearms lmao. We find bloody kalashnikovs pretty regularly here despite them being very much illegal.

Not to mention the Port Arthur shooting having...Many many questionable things about it.

Sorry to hear that. Didn't know you were Australian, but sounds like things suck on your end.

Besides that, I thought I heard about a few shootings that still happened, even after the buyback post-Port Arthur? Weird how those got memory-holed, too, as I suspect they'd have run contrary to the whole "Gun control worked for us!" narrative that prevails over there.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Sorry to hear that. Didn't know you were Australian, but sounds like things suck on your end.

Besides that, I thought I heard about a few shootings that still happened, even after the buyback post-Port Arthur? Weird how those got memory-holed, too, as I suspect they'd have run contrary to the whole "Gun control worked for us!" narrative that prevails over there.

Oh you get shootings all the time here (actually I take that back, not 'here', mostly on the east coast), the amount of road-signs with bullet holes in them kinda shows somebody has a gun lmao.
Just that nobody talks about it. Don't talk about it? Doesn't exist!

 

[Captain X]

Not to mention the Port Arthur shooting having...Many many questionable things about it.

I don't suppose you could go into that at all, could you?

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I don't suppose you could go into that at all, could you?

Basically all of this. The idea that a mentally handicapped person was aimbotting people left right and center with a fed-owned gun is absurd.
Edit: Also after the shooting the evidence/information was sealed away for 30 years. Recently it was sealed away (again!) for another 75 years. Because that's totally organic and normal for a pretty standard-issue mass shooting.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

so, a small deviation for a bit of odd news,
the insurance industry has weighed in on the idea of mandating gun insurance.

tl;dr, they already cover accidents under their existing policies, and they will not cover deliberate crimes.

 

[DarthOne]

Basically all of this. The idea that a mentally handicapped person was aimbotting people left right and center with a fed-owned gun is absurd.
Edit: Also after the shooting the evidence/information was sealed away for 30 years. Recently it was sealed away (again!) for another 75 years. Because that's totally organic and normal for a pretty standard-issue mass shooting.

Reminds me of some of the stuff I’ve heard about that one guy who shot up a concert or something from a skyscraper a few years back. I think it was in Los Vegas, or some such place?

 

[Zyobot]

Basically all of this. The idea that a mentally handicapped person was aimbotting people left right and center with a fed-owned gun is absurd.
Edit: Also after the shooting the evidence/information was sealed away for 30 years. Recently it was sealed away (again!) for another 75 years. Because that's totally organic and normal for a pretty standard-issue mass shooting.

Hmm, hmm…

Not sure I trust a message board without pointing me to further verification (like some declassified documents). But if that’s all true, then I guess the US isn’t alone in suspicious shootings where the intelligence agencies just stood idly by — or worse, had more of a hand in instigating than they’ll ever admit to.

Reminds me of some of the stuff I’ve heard about that one guy who shot up a concert or something from a skyscraper a few years back. I think it was in Los Vegas, or some such place?

Yeah, you’re probably thinking of the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting — the details of which are also quite “odd”, now that you point it out.

In any case, I predict the pro-gun rights side’s newest talking point is how so many of these infamous shootings that anti-gun activists and Democratic politicians point to are too suspicious to have all been planned and carried out without “outside help” of sorts (read: “Glowie grooming and astroturfing!”). They’ll get shouted down as conspiracy theorists (and probably hit with Alex Jones-style defamation lawsuits to silence them), but that probably won’t stop it.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Hmm, hmm…

Not sure I trust a message board without pointing me to further verification (like some declassified documents). But if that’s all true, then I guess the US isn’t alone in suspicious shootings where the intelligence agencies just stood idly by — or worse, had more of a hand in instigating than they’ll ever admit to.

Am Australian, can personally confirm most of it. Dude had like 60-something IQ, and was found on fire. Not 100% certain about "I AM THE HOSTAGE" but it's possible.

Gun also 100% belonged to the feds.