The 2nd Amendment is completely obsolete and that's what we are fighting over.

[fightforfreedom]

Take a moment to think about that.

[DURHAM D]

1. Shouldn't we require everyone who wants to

own a gun to join their state's National Guard. No pay.

[former9thward]

25. We do.

At least covering the majority of gun owners.

10 U.S. Code § 246

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So if you are between 17 and 45 you are part of the unorganized militia whether you want to be or not. And you receive no pay. The law has been on the books since 1792 in one form or another. Members of the unorganized militia are expected to supply their own weapons.

[maxsolomon]

2. Worst constructed sentence in the history of America.

Scalia rendered the 1st half meaningless.

Saturating the nation with more guns than people made it superfluous.

[In It to Win It]

11. He manufactured a self defense right

from thin air

[brush]

3. That is exactly the right word. OBSOLETE. In any other area...

we don't live with obsoleted, outdated things. We upgrade, we replace, we modernize, we even, dare I say, dispatch outdated, replaceable OBSOLETE things to garbage dumpsters.

It's time to do that with an amendment written in the 18th century about 18th century militia and weapons technology—muzzle-loading, one-shot muskets that required 2-3 minutes to reload when we
're now dealing with everyday, non-militia yahoos who can get their hands on semi-auto assault weapons that can easily converted to automatic fire like the killer in Las Vegas did when he took 59 lives and injured over 500.

And 900 rpm Uzis can even be had if one is so connected.

The Second Amendment is definitely OBSOLETE.

[Calculating]

4. What about others like the first?

Should it not apply to the internet because there were only newspapers back then?

[brush]

7. Good thought. The newspaper/print industry largely adheres to and is governed by...

defamation laws which stops them from printing/publishing libel/slander for fear of huge-dollar law suits and damage to their professional reputations. Professional journalism abides by these standards.

IMO online outlets should be governed by the same standards—facebook, twitter, instagram, tic tock, telegram and the like as they are engaged in publishing.

Of course they would all be adamantly against it and it would take a massive effort to establish new regulations and methods of enforcement, but to your point, it should be done.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. You know...

...the 1A covers other things aside from the "Press".

[brush]

10. The poster asked about the internet which is really publishing...

which is what I addressed. Internet sites engage in publishing even if they don't want to have to police their sites.

First amendment in free speech, daily encounters one-on-one, if that's what you're getting at, can't really be controlled.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. Is this what you really mean?

"First amendment in free speech, daily encounters one-on-one, if that's what you're getting at, can really be controlled."

[brush]

14. That's a typo. I fixed it to "can't". Good catch.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Do you think Democratic Underground should be...

...responsible for censoring everything posted here?

[brush]

17. There are term of service here. The monitors do...

what they can and DU members are pretty good at observing the TOC and alerting on post that don't. I wouldn't called it censorship but things are monitored,

I'd been alerted on and put in alert jail a couple times.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. TOS here is written by admins.

It doesn't require government approval nor does government audit TOS enforcement.

I'm not sure what it is that you're advocating for?

[brush]

20. I'm not advocating anything for DU. You asked about DU.

My original post discussed newspaper/print adherence to defamation laws and journalism standards for publishing. IMO internet sites are publishers and should be governed by the same standards. That's what I was advocating. The DU issue is related but tangential.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. DU being an instance of a publisher since it is an internet site, I thought you might have an idea.

[brush]

22. As I said, I've been in "alert" jail here before.

I'm not going to interfere with the admin/monitors. I know the terms of service.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. How would you rewrite it? n/t

[brush]

18. Best to leave that to Congressional and legal experts

[Bayard]

5. It will never be corrected in the current culture

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. Warren Burger agrees

Link to tweet

[hack89]

8. It is also somewhat irrelevent when it comes to gun control

because it is not preventing laws like AWBs, registration, training requirements - they are all perfectly constitutional post Heller.

According to Heller, the only right the 2A protects is the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. That is it.

The problem with passing gun control laws is purely political and cultural.

[AntiFascist]

23. The Heller decision needs to be overturned...

The only thing the 2nd Amendment allows is for a well-regulated State militia, for which gun owners would then join purely for defense against tyranny. This may seem outdated and unnecessary, but who knows what is possible if someone like Trump takes power again.

[hack89]

26. Heller does not stop the passage of a national AWB

so why not focus solely on doing that?

There are a lot of laws that need to be passed that are perfectly constitutional - why waste time on overturning Heller.

[AntiFascist]

27. I agree that banning assault weapons like the AR-15 should be a priority...

I'm not a lawyer and I haven't researched the legal arguments, but it seems like Heller would be used in an argument to prevent an AWB:

To the question “what is protected under the Second Amendment?”, Heller answers: those firearms in “common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.”[3] “Common use” suggests two possibilities.One is a narrow, numerical standard that would protect best-selling models from popular manufacturers but allow prohibitions on obscure brands of essentially the same gun. The other view is that “common use” means functionally common. This view would protect the entire class of similarly functioning guns regardless of whether millions were sold by popular makers.

https://harvardlpr.com/online-articles/the-second-amendment-in-the-states-and-the-limits-of-the-common-use-standard/

These days it seems like the AR-15 is becoming more commonly used.

Obviously there are rights that are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, but I'm just pointing out that the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted way too broadly, almost like a mantra among gun owners.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. re: "...the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted way too broadly, almost like a mantra..."

How some folks misinterpret the 2A is an issue for their lack of education. What matters is how is applied by the courts.


I suspect that one reason many of these young copycat spree murderers use an AR is that they see other scum like themselves use it successfully to murder a dozen or more innocents. They need not educate themselves on the capabilities or functionality of any other guns. The media is always quick to highlight the use of an AR in any crime due it being contentious.

A Ruger Mini 14 fires the same ammo at the same rate but it's not black, has no accessory rail nor bayonet lug and looks like a regular hunting rifle.


An AWB is a useless effort.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. About that...

"In pari materia ("upon the same matter or subject&quot
When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Canons


In every instance, the articles in the Bill of Rights refer to the people. In the Constitution as a whole government and agencies their of are given powers not rights. In all cases rights have been clarified and protected by laws but not created.

[AntiFascist]

29. Interesting...

the other problem I see is that AR-15's are often used for military defensive purposes, and that IS exactly what the 2nd Amendment addresses: a militia defending a State.

Any gun rights related to these assault weapons, therefore, need to be clarified that they are only for use within such a well-regulated militia.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. The AR-15 is a modified design which originated in the M-16.

The are a few differences, the main one being that the AR fires in semi-auto only. M-16s originally had select fire options of safety, semi-auto and full-auto. AFAIK all current military rifles are full-auto or select fire.

My reading tells me that the original intent was to ensure that regardless of individuals having an innate right to self-defense, all males ages 17 to 45 would be required to won an maintain an infantry appropriate rifle. Both the Federalist Papers and Militia Acts of the period confirm this. The 2A was meant as a protection to ensure that government would be powerless to disarm the people.

Side note: IMO some of the best work on the ballistic characteristics of various kinds of small arms ammo was written by Dr Gary Roberts LCdr USNR.

[AntiFascist]

32. From Wikipedia...

In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".

...

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[15] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. A reply; I think we're agreeing here.

FP#46 enumerates Madison's expectation that every citizen be equipped for militia service. Having experienced the Revolution where the national government became tyrannical, many people in the US were adamant that guards were needed to prevent any new national government from evolving the same way.

Cruikshank clarified the intent of the 2A as a having direct effect on the Federal government. Three years later the 14A was ratified which was incorporated by Heller in 2008 as having effect on the states as well.

In 1939, Miller's case argued that his right to own a sawed-off shotgun was protected by the 2A. By the time the case was heard by SCOTUS Miller had been killed by his criminal associates and his counsel did not appear to present any opposing argument. With no opposition present the court stated as you quoted, that the 2A protects arms appropriate for militia use.

[roamer65]

12. Completely misinterpreted amendment.

If Hillary had appointed the 3 justices, it wouldn’t be.

[groundloop]

24. Yes, it's damned sad when a few words trumps the right of children to live a happy, healthy life....

It's way past time to change those damned words.

[hunter]

33. It's not "obsolete." It was bullshit when it was written, and it's bullshit now.

It was put there to appease slave owners who feared rebellions just like the one that happened a few years later in Haiti.

It's not the only bullshit thing in the Constitution as it was originally written. Remember the Remember the 3/5 person compromise?

And the composition of the Senate is utterly undemocratic, a fact the Republicans have taken advantage of to chew away at any civil rights protections we've achieved. That too was meant to protect the white male property owners, especially those who considered other human beings property.

[harumph]

34. Electoral College is obsolete as well.