Sutherland Springs, TX church shooting

do you realize that people do hunt other game than just deer, right? Thus the demand for semi-automatic shotguns for duck hunting, for example. Critters generally don't stick around too long, thus the need for fast follow-up shots before they get out of range. Or, quick follow up shots because ducks are generally in a flock and you might shoot more than one if you are fast & accurate enough. But I'm sure you knew that.

I understand that, and entirely disagree with it. They are using selective textualism by focusing on the latter part of the 2nd Amendment while ignoring the first part. This clause was included for a reason and should in fact serve as a framework the entire amendment. Read in its entirety, a well-regulated militia is the right not to be infringed--with the right to arms being one component permitted only in the context of the militia, as part of the state's right to self-defense. Even pre-revolutionary writings and laws recognized that the right to bear arms is contingent in the overall right to organize militias, but not as a separate right preserved in a vacuum. In the Constitution, Congress has authority to regulate militias. Thus it seems clear that arms, as one component of these militias, is capable of being regulated by Congress.

The more grammatically correct version is "I have a car because I like to go out to dinner" and "The right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed because a militia may or may not be needed." In fact, Madison proposed something closer to this structure in the House:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

But the House ultimately rejected this version, showing that they disagreed with your notion that we have the independent right to bear arms because it may be necessary to form a militia.

Rather, through subsequent modifications, by moving the militia clause first and inserting a comma before "shall not be infringed," it is clear that the House intended the militia clause to be the independent right in the provision, not the right to bear arms. The militia encompasses the right to bear arms, and bearing arms is not an independent right separate of militia service.

Again, this interpretation makes sense in the context of how the colonies (and even the British) prescribed their militias.

That's kind of awesomely well put. It addresses my main concerns about interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.

I ignore nothing and my interpretation is fully consistent with context. Show how my interpretation is inconsistent with context.

The militia clause provides the reason why the right cannot be infringed. People may need to form militias, therefore their right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. And therefore arms that are suitable for militia use are protected.

No, it doesn't. I specifically state that the people having the ability to form militias are why the right may not be infringed, and that weapons suitable for a militia are protected.

However, the right is not contingent on participation in a militia. Indeed, militia isn't called into service until there is a threat to the state's security. The best example is President George Washington (I think his term was pretty early in U.S. history, right?) calling up the militia during the Whiskey Rebellion. Did all of the militiamen gain the rights to keep and bear arms during that crisis and then lose those rights immediately thereafter? No, that's ridiculous.

Uh...no. According to the rules of English grammar, the militia clause ("A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is a dependent clause. It cannot stand on its own.

The active clause ("The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") is independent; that is, it can stand on its own.

The 2nd Amendment is a sentence of the form BECAUSE X, Y.

You're grasping at straws here.

Militia would be needed to fight a tyrannical government. They're not a substitute for the U.S. military.

The militia portion perhaps, but the right to keep and bear are not. Even if the militia will never, ever, ever be called into service again, the right to keep and bear arms remains.

If I could rewrite the amendment, it wouldn't result in me having fewer freedoms.

The third amendment is pretty antiquated, yet I still don't want soldiers living in my home without my permission.

Your family had political connections to the Governor. I am a Colonel in the Alabama State Militia, by order of Governor George C. Wallace. It's the official equivalent of a Kentucky Colonel and can be legally appended to your name.

I once signed a marriage license Reverend (Colonel) Elwood Blues (ASM).

This is a lie.

Steve2^4 is educated enough to know better. He just has an anti-gun agenda that he wants to push so he knowingly is making false arguments.

Fair enough.

"False arguments"? Is that like Donnie Smallhands' "fake news"?

When the right against soldiers being quartered in your home kills tens of thousands of people a year, get back to me.

Until then, you think you're being clever with your false equivalentcy, but you're not.

You know it’s people who are killing other people right?

Honest question: What would the anti-gunners have us do with our guns if they were to be banned? I mean, I have thousands of dollars worth of guns. Do I get reimbursed? 10 cents on the dollar? What? Or would I be expected to just hand them over at the local PD? These are things I purchased legally, mind you, plus some family heirlooms with varying degrees of value both monetary and sentimental.

What would the collection process be?
Door-to-door visits from ATF & FBI agents? That ain't gonna fly in the stix. And not just in the stix would there be a mess of dead agents and civilians as a result.
Honor system turn-ins at the local PD? You'll probably get 10% compliance, if that. What for the non-compliers? Hunt them down and build a few dozen new prisons per state?

So far your arguments have consisted of calling people names. You're not helping your case, sparky.

You seem a bit paranoid. I think you'd have to be to have a TV gun, Night Stand Gun, Kitchen Drawer Gun, Back Door Gun, Car Gun, Shower Gun, etc.. I have Oregon Scientific radio controlled clocks/weather stations in every room. People think I'm a bit odd so I sympathize with you.

As a gun-grabber (this is the official term, isn't it?) I would like to see meaningful regulations. Here are some ideas off the top of my head in no particular order:

1. Eliminate the sale of semi-automatic weapons (automatics are already banned). Can't do a damn thing about those already owned. Maybe require registration like we do for machine-guns that are grandfathered in.
2. Universal background checks. I don't know enough about the current system to say how it needs improving (Shoes has posted several times in this thread already on the subject).
3. Ban open carry. It's bad for tourism as it makes us look like loons.
4. Track ammunition purchases with at least the same effort we do sudafed. Limits on the amount of ammunition that can be bought over time.
5. Make secondary, private sales illegal with heavy handed laws to encourage the use of licensed gun brokers.
   
6. If a gun used in a crime was stolen, and not reported stolen by its owner, the owner of record should be charged with at least a misdemeanor crime for not securing their weapons adequately.
7. If a gun is used by a child, the owner should be charged with felony child endangerment.
8. Purchase of a gun requires X-hours training by a licensed trainer resulting in a license to buy a gun. This training would be recurring, at least once every 5 years to maintain an active license for the purchase of any additional guns.
9. Require an interview for any CCW by local law enforcement and additional training that focuses on how not to use a gun when a situation escalates.
10. Purchase of more than 3 guns requires a certificate of mental health from a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or counselor.
11. Increase the sales tax on guns to cover the administrative costs not covered by the cost of the licenses. A 20-30% tax should do it.
12. Require police forces to carry smart guns, resulting in technology that is reliable. The fingerprint reader on my smart phone seems pretty bulletproof.
13. Phase in smart guns as mandatory over a period of years (not decades) for new consumer weapons. Work on something to retrofit older guns with smart locks.

That's a false analogy. Gun regulations affect the owners. Guns don't kill people, the person holding the gun kills people. We need to do something about the people with guns. The people without guns I'm not so concerned about.

Punt gun for ducks, amateur.

But following your logic, Death Star would be permissible too. Why waste a shot when you could drop every muthaducking duck on the planet?

I'm not making an argument. The arguments have been made multiple times in previous threads, by you and everyone else.

The whole pocket nukes argument is garbage and is only pushed by anti-gun people.

So I'm simply calling you what you are. A cunt.

Did someone leave the screen-door open again?

Let's not get carried away - night stand, living room, computer room and basement is plenty.

I'll take a whack...
1. Good luck - They're the single most common type, because they're the 'standard" tech for modern guns. Requiring registration will only result in massive non-compliance (it did in NJ when Florio banned assault rifles, and it did in NY when the SAFE act happened). What happens then?
2. I got no problem with background checks, I've had one every time I bought a gun. But like we just saw in TX, the info has to be IN the system for it work.
3. Actually, I think open carry is kind dumb, so whatever. I'd like to see national concealed carry licenses that supersede state laws.
4. Currently, in NJ at least, all ammo sales are logged in the store's log book, the purchaser IDed by Firearms ID card or Driver's License. A friend in NYC once bought some ammo for his father's pistol, and got a phone call from the police asking why, since he himself didn't have a gun in that caliber registered.
5. I'm not personally sure how private sales work, but if I were to sell a gun, I'd definitely go thru an FFL. You'd pretty much have to if there was any existing paperwork on the gun anyway, since you'd want your name off that paperwork. Old family guns with no paperwork? I dunno. Transfers within the family - inheritance - should be nobody's business.
6. I think such laws already exist. Unfortunately it doesn't take into account the fact that you might not even know your gun was stolen - think of (for instance) a rural area where a guy maybe has a gun stashed in a tool chest in the garage and somebody stole the chest, but the guy didn't notice for a week or so.
7. Probably already on the books, or should be. Kids under a certain age should be educated to not handle guns (the NRA's Eddie Eagle program does this). Older kids should be taught basic gun safety in school. Parents with guns need to be responsible for teaching kids about safety.
8. Not thrilled with that idea. One doesn't require training for any other civil right. Even a driver's license is a one-time application, with renewals not requiring retesting.
9. Not familiar with CCW licensing, but i believe training is already a requirement.
10. 3 guns simultaneously? People do buy collections or boxed sets sometimes. NJ requires a check of my mental health history for each handgun purchase, and a separate permit and check for each handgun. So if I won the NRA sweepstakes and chose 5 handguns, my local PD would have to initiate 5 separate checks. Mental health history should be part of the NICS check, but again, the info has to be in there in the first place.
11. No thanks. Guns are already expensive enough. Extra taxes are looked upon as a back-door attempt at restrictions and a foot-in-the-door to de-facto banning by making them too expensive. And remember, low-income families have a right to self-defense too.
12. Police don't WANT smart guns because they ARE unreliable. Nobody wants to bet their lives on hoping the thumbprint reader works. Can you unlock your phone in a microsecond emergency while wearing gloves in freezing weather, hands covered in blood, using your offside hand, etc?
13. I have no problem with smart guns as an OPTION, but not mandatory. Choice and variety. Many gun owners are hobbyists and love owning a variety of guns both modern and historical. No collector wants a thumbprint reader destroying the value and historicity of his original 1873 single action. And again - reliability in a device designed to save your life at a microseconds notice is vital.

for me, very little that's new, more about enhancing what exists.

register them with your state police... anything unregistered would eventually be subject to seizure, but at least a year or two grace period. Even then, no cause to go looking. If they're found during an unrelated investigative matter, they'd be confiscated with a return pending on the original matter's outcome. Otherwise, keep'em... especially the historical ones.

Non historic, convertible to auto weapons would face greater retail restrictions and be trackable (i.e.; GPS, registration of all transfers). Discourage production by taxing the manufacturers thus shrinking the consumer market through the additional costs.

Graduated acquisitional certifications.

High capacity mags would be banned.

Ammo and supply purchaser registry/certification.

The usual argument about bearing arms in public during peacetime vs fulfilling militia duties...

Otherwise, just some storage and security requirements...

I don't blame police for not wanting smart guns, but unless there is a market for them, no one is going to work on the tech to make them failsafe. The NRA will cause any gun maker that announces it's working on this to cease or cease to exist.

I think this is the surest path to safer and reliable guns. Android has "smart lock" that can identify if the phone is carried by its owner without a secondary device. I think a lot of this tech is transportable to weapons. I'm sure if we put our minds to it we could come up with something that is transportable to consumer grade guns. Trigger locks with thumbprint readers is more what I was thinking. I've already seen biometric gun safes at costco (when I was picking out my smart phone).

New Jersey seems like it's got some common sense legislation at work.

No, 3 guns total. The mental health check would be active, not passive, that is you'd have to sign up to have your head examined if you wanted to possess more than 3 guns over your lifetime.

Maybe it's just me, but the guy who has a gun stashed in his garage should be subject to misdemeanor charges for failing to adequately secure his weapon. What if his kid or some neighbor's kid found it?

I've lost track of how many times I've taken the written driving test. Every state you move to requires at least this, many will require the driving portion as well. A national test would be swell, but with each state having its own DMV that isn't going to happen.

As for gun licenses, I'd think pride of ownership would be enhanced by having to take training and pass tests. I'm not talking about reading the brochure and answer 10 questions. Mandated hours on a shooting range with a qualified instructor. Yeah, it'll be expensive too.