Opinion Poll: Should all new guns be tracked cradle to grave?

[hillelslovak87]

The first militia act of 1792 literally is about defending the nation.

The people are also the militia. Not just the state or federal regulated ones. As in you could as last resort become your own militia to fight tyranny. There is early writings by founders and supreme court that support this.

Yet, their deliberations are overwhelmingly about giving the states, particularly slave owning states, the right to regulate their militias in their chosen fashion. This was an appeal to the slave owners like Henry and Mason, where Madison was telling them they will still have the power to hunt slaves and put down revolts as they see fit.

The second amendment's power to enforce state power on US citizens was soon put into practice, with militias putting down several rebellions, usually about taxation.

The framers made it clear: fight for the USA against who we deem insurrectionists and you're good, fight against the US and the militias will be used on you.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

Yet, their deliberations are overwhelmingly about giving the states, particularly slave owning states, the right to regulate their militias in their chosen fashion. This was an appeal to the slave owners like Henry and Mason, where Madison was telling them they will still have the power to hunt slaves and put down revolts as they see fit.

The second amendment's power to enforce state power on US citizens was soon put into practice, with militias putting down several rebellions, usually about taxation.

The framers made it clear: fight for the USA against who we deem insurrectionists and you're good, fight against the US and the militias will be used on you.

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46)

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (The Federalist, No. 46)

 

[RerouteToRemain]

The second amendment's power to enforce state power on US citizens was soon put into practice, with militias putting down several rebellions, usually about taxation

I'm aware of the Whiskey Rebellion and others.

The people still had the right to form their own militias.

What you are saying doesn't change anything.

 

[hillelslovak87]

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46)

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (The Federalist, No. 46)

Yes, indeed. It also preserves the state's right to regulate it's militia. The second amendment has undergone judicial review in a rather odd way int he last couple centuries, but I find it laughable to pretend as if it's main cause was to foment rebellion against the state, and not for the protection of the state.

The Federalist paper quotes you listed speak of militias, not of individuals, however. Trusting the citizens with arms went as far as what the state itself deemed at that point, hence the storage facilities for the militia aged men's muskets in many states, powder and ammo houses to store ammo, etc. A few states even had more odd strictures, like allowing the musket in the militia age person's home, but severely restricting the amount of ammo one could have, or keeping the ammo in storehouses all together.

It wasn't just "Fuck it, everyone get your guns, and ANY armament whatsoever!!!"

 

[hillelslovak87]

I'm aware of the Whiskey Rebellion and others.

The people still had the right to form their own militias.

What you are saying doesn't change anything.

The people didn't form the militias, the state did.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Due process should alleviate that concern.

Funny you say that.. Illinois already has a ‘red flag’ law in place that eliminates ‘due process’


No deal.


Fawlty, no government should be trusted with this power. Especially ours. The 2nd was written into the Constitution for a reason by a group of people that literally needed to overthrow an oppressive government.

 

[Fawlty]

The people didn't form the militias, the state did.

Yeah and just a completely different framework that now makes the debate and the amendment feel very shoehorned when we apply to a time when we have a professional army. It's no longer the case that the people are both the defense of the nation and the opposition to tyranny. The Founders simply lacked the vision required to see the need for a global expeditionary force, lol, and we cannot blame them. They had something pretty sweet figured out that would both serve the necessary purpose and appease the South (an unfortunately massive part of our history has been dedicated to appeasing the fucking South, even after we stomped those traitors).

 

[Fawlty]

Funny you say that.. Illinois already has a ‘red flag’ law in place that eliminates ‘due process’


No deal.

Actually yes, due process is alive and well in the Illinois law. Even the police have to petition the court for a restraining order before they can take a person's guns even temporarily under that law.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Actually yes, due process is alive and well in the Illinois law. Even the police have to petition the court for a restraining order before they can take a person's guns even temporarily under that law.

No, they do not have to do that at all. If they show up to a call where a person claims they are being threatened by someone who has access to firearms, the police have the right to confiscate them on the spot. That’s a fact.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I don’t trust Democrats with access to a national gun registry data base. I will never be on board with a registry. It’s far more dangerous than the handful of bad things that happen yearly with firearms.

 

[Fawlty]

No, they do not have to do that at all. If they show up to a call where a person claims they are being threatened by someone who has access to firearms, the police have the right to confiscate them on the spot. That’s a fact.

Show it to me in the law and I'll accept what the law says.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I don’t trust Democrats with access to a national gun registry data base. I will never be on board with a registry. It’s far more dangerous than the handful of bad things that happen yearly with firearms.

Why are you afraid of democrats if we have a system of checks and balances?

 

[My Spot]

Show it to me in the law and I'll accept what the law says.

lol
Why don't you show what you're claiming?

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Why are you afraid of democrats if we have a system of checks and balances?

Trust and fear are two different things. Democrats are the ones who are afraid, that’s why threads like this get made by them. Democrats want to remove the ‘checks and balances’.

 

[10mm]

I don't see how a registry is really much of an infringement as you are still just as free to keep & bear arms. It's also not a crazy ask imo to have accountability for literal Human Murder Machines.

Have you ever shot "human murder machine"
If not, you should. People forgot about the whole other side of shooting. Putting a bullet through a bullseye is a much better time than hitting a ball in a hole on a green...IMO

 

[Higus]

So we should give up our constitutionally protected freedoms as well as giving more power to our "ruler" because maybe in decades mass shootings might "taper off"? That doesn't sound like much of a solution at all to me.

You ever wonder how people in other countries seem to have plenty of freedom without all the guns?

 

[My Spot]

So we should give up our constitutionally protected freedoms as well as giving more power to our "ruler" because maybe in decades mass shootings might "taper off"? That doesn't sound like much of a solution at all to me.

He thinks all guns should be banned. Just pat him on the head and move on.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yes, indeed. It also preserves the state's right to regulate it's militia.

Sure, in the sense that the 2nd is a prohibition on the federal government only. That's why most state Constitutions also contain guarantees of the the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those that didn't were still disallowed from disarming the people by the Constitution, but not the 2nd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

The Federalist paper quotes you listed speak of militias, not of individuals, however.

They spoke of the people. That's the group of individuals that make up the population.

 

[surrealworlds]

You ever wonder how people in other countries seem to have plenty of freedom without all the guns?

What other country has the right to bare arms? Without guns?

 

[Fawlty]

Have you ever shot "human murder machine"
If not, you should. People forgot about the whole other side of shooting. Putting a bullet through a bullseye is a much better time than hitting a ball in a hole on a green...IMO

Yeah I really enjoy target shooting and I take some pride in my patience & accuracy, though the guns have been put away for several years. Recreational shooting isn't a crazy argument against gun restrictions, but it's also not really affected by my proposal.