can we please get guns out of the hands of untrained citizens? allowing (nearly) unrestricted purchase of firearms by every Tom, Dick, and Harriet was not the intention of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

9/22/2012 9:23:44 PM

9/22/2012 9:52:11 PM

Rants for the Soap Box are that way->

9/22/2012 10:11:05 PM

yeah we need more gun control laws, because criminals usually follow the laws to begin with.

it's working out great in Chicago.

[Edited on September 22, 2012 at 11:08 PM. Reason : /]

9/22/2012 11:08:33 PM

can we talk about the intent of the 2nd Amendment? or are you just going to copy and paste that derpy simplistic shit about criminals not following laws?

9/22/2012 11:12:51 PM

Quote :

"allowing (nearly) unrestricted purchase of firearms by every Tom, Dick, and Harriet was not the intention of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. "

Actually, it was.

9/22/2012 11:15:49 PM

yes, please inform me what the real intent was.

Is this what you're thinking...

9/22/2012 11:17:59 PM

what is a militia

9/22/2012 11:22:00 PM

The real intent was to give white people something to keep the slaves in line.

9/22/2012 11:22:18 PM

Quote :

" what is a militia "

According to US Code, the National Guard and "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."

Or more plainly "every Tom, Dick, and Harriet"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[/thread]

9/22/2012 11:34:29 PM

when did that become law

/thread

9/22/2012 11:36:36 PM

Are you seriously asking when the US Code, otherwise known as the "The Code of Laws of the United States of America" became law?

9/22/2012 11:43:00 PM

Lolz, y'all postin in a troll thread

9/23/2012 12:29:11 AM

Quote :

"Are you seriously asking when the US Code, otherwise known as the "The Code of Laws of the United States of America" became law?"

He's asking about that particular part of the Code, which according to the LII's Notes mainly became law in 1956; the codification of United States law more generally, however, started with regularity in 1926, although an official codification had been done in 1874 and private compilations had been made earlier: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_States_Code

In the days before the creation of the United States Code, someone desiring to find the current state of Federal statutory law would need to delve through the Statutes at Large going back to the founding to trace the development of important provisions from English common law, in accordance with the Constitution, and by even the mid-1800s it bogged down the work of a typical lawyer so much that the private sector provided useful compilations of the law, and eventually Congress itself saw the need to summarize its work; however, where the Statutes at Large differ from the Code, the Statutes at Large take precedence, because this means the people who compiled the Code made an error (usually this isn't a big deal, because nowadays most statutes specify where in the code their provisions go, and sometimes entire Titles of the Code are enacted into positive law, as Title 26 was in the tax reform of 1986).

BTW similar codifications have been made of Federal administrative law (Code of Federal Regulations) and the laws of the various states (including the model laws adopted in the main by most states, like the Uniform Commercial Code or the Common Core State Standards), and also of the state of Constitutional interpretation, as The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (US Constitution Annotated, for short) decennially by the CRS (latest update should be available soon) with biennial supplements.


Now more on-topic, that section of the US Code makes a distinction between the "organized militia" (males and females in the National Guard and Naval Militia) and "unorganized militia" (basically all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 who are in neither the Guard nor the Naval Militia); a much better argument is to simply note that the main clause of the Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the part about a well-organized militia merely explains and does not restrict that clause.

[Edited on September 23, 2012 at 4:16 AM. Reason : The 1956 act worked on a provision of law that had been enacted in 1916.

9/23/2012 4:14:56 AM

^ That look like that took effort. So you know I appreciate your effort, let me give you this:

9/23/2012 4:37:18 AM

Fuck gun control. We need bullet control.

WE NEED TO CONTROL THE BULLETS!

9/23/2012 7:17:39 AM

when did settledown become such an annoying user?

it's always either trolling, or some unfunny shit about nudes

[Edited on September 23, 2012 at 7:47 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2012 7:45:00 AM

^^

9/23/2012 8:01:07 AM

^^so what if it's unfunny

they must be released

9/23/2012 8:17:43 AM

Stupid thread is stupid.

9/23/2012 9:31:21 AM

it's not stupid

we need owners of huge guns to exercise less control over them

giggity giggity

9/23/2012 9:51:52 AM

So what does the second amendment mean, then?

9/23/2012 11:21:29 AM

signed.

9/23/2012 12:35:29 PM

I might be a libertarian socialist (in the small l tradition), but I'll be damned if anyone is getting my gun. In fact,
I feel like if more women were properly trained in firearms, not only would that be completely badass, but it might keep down our incidents of crimes against women (rape, muggings, sexual assault, domestic and physical abuse).

On a separate note, my perception is most TWWers are totally also all about their guns.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now.

9/23/2012 3:56:47 PM

Think of when the second amendment was written... we had just successfully over thrown british rule. It's ok to think gun control is required but the intent of the second amendment was to maintain the threat of revolution over the new government should they become oppressive. So to say anything other than that is just fucking stupid. You can say the second amendment is dated and needs revision or something but the original intent has already been severely pussified for the stability of the nation.

If our fore fathers were around and would give congress there opinion Class 3 weapons would be available to the public along with tanks and fighter jets. The point was so that the government could not make decisions against the peoples will and IF they chose to anyway the people had a means to stop an oppressive regime.

[Edited on September 23, 2012 at 6:31 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 23, 2012 at 6:31 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2012 6:29:25 PM

9/23/2012 7:28:13 PM

I'm all for Gun Control; shooters should hit their target with accuracy.

Here, let me define gun control in simple steps:

1. Sight alignment
2. Sight picture
3. Respiratory pause
4. Focusing eye on the front sight while focusing your mind on keeping the front sight on the target.
5. Smooth/Consistent squeeze of the trigger straight back.
6. Follow through

9/23/2012 8:06:21 PM

also

shooting guns is fun as shit

9/23/2012 8:09:00 PM

^^^^

I think it was to form a large army fast using citizens if someone invaded again. Im not sure if they had any intent to defend themselves against the government they just formed.

[Edited on September 23, 2012 at 8:17 PM. Reason : ^^^^]

9/23/2012 8:10:59 PM

Most states wouldn't have joined without the bill of rights of which the second amendment was.

9/23/2012 8:16:12 PM

Do you have something backing that up? Bc I could be wrong.

It seems it was written so the citizens could group together and defend themselves from outside forces. I am not sure the newly firmed government was that outside force. there was the threat of native Americans, british and the Spanish.

[Edited on September 23, 2012 at 8:24 PM. Reason : Bh]

9/23/2012 8:18:51 PM

maybe it was written to, you know, give us the right to keep and bear arms

9/23/2012 8:31:30 PM

Yours makes since too but at that time
Why would anyone worry about being disarmed by the government ?
I mean the government wouldn't attempt to disarm people protecting themselves from enemies of the country right? You don't think there was some leftover paranoia about a new government designed after the old one ?

9/23/2012 8:40:32 PM

good god this thread gets dumber by the minute

9/23/2012 8:41:38 PM

Are you surprised? This is a settledown thread.

9/23/2012 8:44:50 PM

Lol you do know the British made it illegal to posses a firearm in the colonies in 1768 and began collecting and destroying them. Which is why this issue was brought up.

You do know
It took a while for all states to want to be united right? This was one of the consessions.


It's not dumb it's friggin history

9/23/2012 8:47:44 PM

If the second amendment does not protect an individual right, then what right does it protect?

9/24/2012 2:18:58 PM

Thread is weak, but at least OP asked nicely.

9/24/2012 2:46:59 PM

Ask a founding father:

Quote :

"...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html

9/24/2012 3:06:33 PM

Quote :

"I think it was to form a large army fast using citizens if someone invaded again. Im not sure if they had any intent to defend themselves against the government they just formed."

While I disagree with this, if it were true, then should we disband the military? If I'm not mistaken, a standing army wasn't part of the federal government to begin with. Using your post, that idea comes to light, thus private ownership of firearms was necessary because that would be the military. So if the second amendment was about protecting the right to bear arms for military use by the people, then it is still an individual right, the military should be disbanded, and all able bodied citizens have the right to arms.

9/24/2012 3:44:28 PM

^ ok?

May have worked in 1776.

9/24/2012 6:27:51 PM

Yeah, you know when the vast majority of people had to use fire arms in farming hunting etc.
Not to mentions arms that were supirior to millitary arms of the time
As compared to now when the millitary's regular carry weapon isn't even availible to the public.

9/24/2012 7:37:38 PM

^^ok, great. works now.

[Edited on September 24, 2012 at 7:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2012 7:39:26 PM

What are we discussing?

I'm fine with people having guns. I'm just stating I did not agree with the logic given behind the existence of the second amendment.

9/24/2012 8:46:59 PM

understandable.... it may not have been the majority opinion but it was an opinion and has been documented.

just because we had a new government doesn't mean people wanted to go back to paying taxes that may get out of control again.

It was the ultimate in checks & balances... if the government needed the respect of the people to function then it would function in a respectful manner.

9/25/2012 9:02:37 AM

Well only land owning white males could vote. Id assume the states (rich people) where looking out for their interests just in case. I'm sure the common man was not taken into account apart from their state allegence. This way if one state attacked another there would be a built in army of cannon fodder.

[Edited on September 25, 2012 at 11:18 AM. Reason : Hh]

9/25/2012 11:15:19 AM

rich people were also the onlyones that could afford fire arms of any kind at this point in time.

carrying a hand gun was a display of affluence.

9/25/2012 1:02:44 PM

I'm pretty sure the majority of people owned a hunting rifle. You couldn't just go get ground chuck at food lion.

9/25/2012 2:57:35 PM