Shouldn't being on a govenment list be a reason TO be able to have a gun?

[nadine_mn]

Hang on with me before outrage starts - this is a serious question, not click bait or attempts to start a flame war.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was for a well-regulated militia to stand up and protect itself from a tyrannical government.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, our country was fighting a government that was infringing upon their rights. There was no way the English were going to endorse an army of colonists to stand up for their rights - if they were soldiers, the fought for the crown.

Currently it is easy to say...well if they are on a no-fly list, no gun. Clearly they are a terrorist and shouldn't have weapons.
Let's ignore for the moment the amount of mistakes that have been made and regular people (sometimes even children) have been put on the no-fly list due to some error.

OK...that works because up until now we have had relatively normal politicians in government.

But if Trump is elected - all that shit flies out the window. You have seen the ease with which he dismisses 1st Amendment rights for people who speak or write "bad things" (ie truth) about him. He would have no problem putting any dissident on any a list that would restrict every right - esp the right to have a gun.


Hypothetically - the scenario could be that anyone who vocally disagrees with a Trumpian gov't, could be put on a no-fly list, a banned from having a gun list, maybe not allowed to vote, not get a gov't ID. What if shit got really bad - you can't imagine a group of Trump Troopers busting into your house and doing an illegal search (of course now legal) in case you had drawn an image of Trump with tiny hands?

His brand of craziness and tyranny IS the reason our founding fathers had in mind to protect against.


I am not for guns, I don't think there is a need for assault style rifles or clips that enable a shooter to take out a crowd without reloading.

I think certain types of guns should be banned before we talk about banning people from purchasing because of "suspicious activity" - which could be interpreted to mean anything. Because we are seeing a rise in intolerance that very few in power have the guts to stand up against.

[jmg257]

1. 1st mistake: "The purpose of the 2nd amendment was for a well-regulated militia to stand up and

protect itself from a tyrannical government."

2nd mistake: 'At the time of the writing of the Constitution, our country was fighting a government that was infringing upon their rights.'



I'll read more to see where we go from there...

[nadine_mn]

4. Ok your interpretation and mine differ

There was an expectation at the time of the writing of the Constitution that every adult male (white) would serve in the militia, own a gun, and keep that gun at home

the focus was on the militia part, less about self protection

[jmg257]

7. Agreed. The purpose was to remove the pretext for a large standing army, making

it so fighting against one would not be necessary.

The 2nd amendment was to ensure the militias could not be destroyed, and a standing army built upon its ruin.

The militias themselves were to be called forth in case of insurrections, not to assist in them.

[Cassiopeia]

2. Anything less than nuclear weapons

Will be useless in a fight against the government.

Our military has lots of stuff much more powerful than any rifle or handgun.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. A few historical technicalities...

The Constitution was written in 1787, well after the Revolutionary War was over (Britain had surrendered in 1783), and the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment, was added three years later, in 1791. So at that point the new United States were no longer fighting against a "tyrannical government" - that conflict had been over for eight years. The Second Amendment was to some extent based on the much older English Bill of Rights, which referenced the "natural right" of self-defense. Many historians think the main reason for the amendment was the resistance of the new government to maintaining a standing army, both because of the concern that a federally- funded and controlled army could be used against the people, and because of the expense, even for a standing army fighting foreign wars.

The problem is that the technology of weaponry has advanced dramatically since that time. The reality is that the guns that are generally available are no match for the military forces of the federal government. You can't go out and buy the sort of weapons the Army has, and the average gun-humper's AR-15 will be no match for a tank or a Stinger missile or an armed drone or even the fully-automatic weapons the Army has. So for that argument to hold water any more, people should be able to purchase, keep and bear the same arms as the military. And I do not think most of us want the same dingbats who are now buying AR-15s to be able to go out and get shoulder-fired missiles or bazookas or tanks or grenade launchers.

[nadine_mn]

6. I get that it was written after the war - but do you think that had no reflection

on the decisions and discussions at the Constitutional Convention?


I am not arguing about type of weapon or anything else. There were all kinds of laws that existed at the time of the Bill of Rights restricting having gun powder in your home or having a loaded gun or who could have what kind of gun.

I am taking the philosophical point of view that 'government lists' and banning people from doing things SOLELY ON THE BASIS of being on the list (not due to past convictions etc) is an ugly road to go down

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. The "no-fly" list has always been problematic

and I understand at least the argument that being on the no-fly list shouldn't automatically prevent someone from buying a gun (or anything else). There are still people on that list who have no connection to any terrorist organizations or activities, but can't get on an airplane, can't get off the list, and can't find out anything about why they are on it or how to get off. There isn't an easy answer, IMO.

[jmg257]

5. That is what the argument is about: the lack of due process for getting on a list

that will be used to infringe on guaranteed right(s).

I think they are discussing "delaying" getting a gun - like a waiting period for further investigation...still a tough call.

[CBGLuthier]

9. Where is your proof that the 2nd amendment is meant to protect us from

a tyrannical government?

I have heard that argument my entire life but it is not what the amendment says.
You go read it, come back, and tell me where it says in order to protect us from a tyrannical government the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

BTW, not to be a dick but your history is poor. When the Constitution was written the war had been over for 4 years. When it was ratified, 6 years,

[HereSince1628]

10. I don't think we were fighting Britain in 1787