Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[smjjames]

Anything that's not part of a 'militia'. It's all about that one word, isn't it...

I'm sorry, but are sportsmen, farmers, gamekeepers and huntsmen part of a militia?

What about rangers, parkkeepers, and policemen?

As for the dictionary definition:


militia
  Use Militia in a sentence
mi·li·tia
[mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

You can see where problems would arise in defining the word militia in the constitution, does it mean all able bodied citizens? Does it just mean the national guard (which is what number one and two of both of those seem to mean)?

You really have to take the second amendment in the context of what they meant by militia, but then theres the 'right to bear arms' part.

I wonder if any other countries have parts of their constitution that are problematic like the second amendment.

[XXSockXX]

I wonder if any other countries have parts of their constitution that are problematic like the second amendment.

I really doubt it, at least nothing as problematic. Most constitutions are much much newer than the US one, post WW2 or even more recent. The ones that aren't have been extensively rewritten in more recent times. Most countries don't have founding fathers whose words are considered semi-sacred, so changing the constitution or writing a new one instead of amending it is not that uncommon.

[GlyphGryph]

GlyphGryph, he got a point though. The plural of anecdote is not data.

A single instance of  abberent behaviour (so long as its trustworthy) is evidence enough to completely disprove a theory or any encompassing statement. Whether an anecdote provides useful information to serve as a basis for reasoning depends on the exact statement being made.

The NRA (or at least the lackeys who repost their statements) has frequently taken the position that these attacks would be (not could be, would be) stopped earlier if more people had guns. That gun laws were responsible for these massacres by robbing people of their ability to defend themselves. That more guns are the only solution that is needed.

The fact that the victims included two police officers (who are allowed to carry weapons) and a man with a gun who got involved specifically in an attempt to stop that makes it pretty clear that their bullshit argument is false. It is a significant blow to their rhetoric, because they weren't even operating off of anecdote - they were simply operating off of conjecture and false assurances. More guns is *not* enough to stop an attack of this type. If they can help, statistically, fine - now, hopefully, the NRA would fall back to making THAT argument instead, maybe even contextualizing when and how.

A single instance is definitely not enough to say "an armed populace doesn't help stop murder sprees!" but if it is true, it's definitely 100% solid evidence of "an armed populace is not always enough to stop murder sprees.", and the NRA until this point has seemingly refused to admit that second statement is even a possibility.

[10ebbor10]

An anecdote is indeed not data.

But when you have a situation if people claim that if A occurs, then (not) B happens, then a single occurrence is enough to disprove the theory.

[Helgoland]

Anything that's not part of a 'militia'. It's all about that one word, isn't it...

I'm sorry, but are sportsmen, farmers, gamekeepers and huntsmen part of a militia?

For a sufficiently loose use of 'militia': Yes. We have to discern between recreational and professional purposes, though: Gamekeepers, hunters etc. who need to use guns as part of their job would need to go through a separate licensing process; the same applies to gun ownership for self-defense reasons, where at least a plausible need for such protection should be required. The second amendment has little to nothing to do with these groups, except for the self-defense bit.
For gun ownership for recreational purposes, I'd support a requirement to pass a background check and get a license demonstrating one's capability of using the gun type in question, as well as membership in a gun user association (think a sane NRA) that conducts regular marksmanship training and keeps a register of members and their weaponry. The 'militia' in question would be that association - 'militia' pretty much implies trained and controlled members, and that's all I want to achieve.

[10ebbor10]

It's not because gamekeepers and stuff wouldn't be in a militia, and therefore not have the constitutional right to bear arms, that they wouldn't have the right to bear arms by federal or what'it law.

[mainiac]

The supremes wouldn't rule that guns are illegal in this hypothetical, I can't imagine what that argument would even look like.  They'd eliminate the individual right to ownership.  That would leave it up to congress to rule who is and is not allowed to own guns.  Congress wouldn't be obliged to limit ownership to militia members.

[GlyphGryph]

The supremes wouldn't rule that guns are illegal in this hypothetical, I can't imagine what that argument would even look like.  They'd eliminate the individual right to ownership.  That would leave it up to congress to rule who is and is not allowed to own guns.  Congress wouldn't be obliged to limit ownership to militia members.

Thanks, Obamacare!

[nenjin]

Anything that's not part of a 'militia'. It's all about that one word, isn't it...

No, it's really about three words.

WELL-REGULATED MILITA.

Funny how those first two words get ignored by gun-toting patriots who threaten to shoot anyone who tries to tell them what to do with their guns.

[Culise]

Indeed.  Besides, lacking a constitutional right to bear arms doesn't automatically prohibit them from bearing arms.  Law is typically proscriptive, rather than permissive - that is, as the old joke goes, everything is permitted unless it is prohibited (or, more prosaically, "ain't no law against it").  If the constitutional right to bear arms goes away or becomes restricted to militias only, that still doesn't affect the ability to bear arms in itself - the right to bear arms for members of militias has no bearing on the right or ability to bear arms by general individuals.  The only thing such a ruling would lead to is the ability to establish, through statutory law, blanket bans on gun ownership, and these can be written with exceptions for agents of the state (police, etc.), those whose private jobs nearly mandate gun ownership (gamekeepers, rangers), and so forth. 

[Sheb]

Owlbread: while it's true there has been a rise recently, there is a 40 year trend of diminishing gin ownership. I expect the trend to continue once the post Sandy-hook bump is gone. Paradoxically, trying to impose gun restriction might boost gun sales and ownership.

nenjin: Didn't "well-regulated" means "well-equipped" back in the day? I say we use it to ban any gun smaller than a M60. :p

[GreatJustice]

Anything that's not part of a 'militia'. It's all about that one word, isn't it...

No, it's really about three words.

WELL-REGULATED MILITA.

Funny how those first two words get ignored by gun-toting patriots who threaten to shoot anyone who tries to tell them what to do with their guns.

In the actual amendment, though, the "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" is separated by a comma which proceeds to also mention "THE PEOPLE", who presumably are separate from the "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA". Even were that not the case, the "WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" of 18th century America pretty much covered all male citizens of the US, so it doesn't exactly constitute a restriction.

Also, just because a person with a concealed weapon was killed doesn't mean that suddenly concealed weapons can't work. I doubt even the NRA would say that one random person with a gun will definitely stop a shooter, because that ignores factors like luck, skill, etc etc. What they would say is that a person with a concealed weapon increases the odds of stopping a shooting, which would generally be correct (there are plenty of examples of this, but for some inexplicable reason people don't make the headlines by shooting people before they start their massacres).

[Steeled]

Anything that's not part of a 'militia'. It's all about that one word, isn't it...

I'm sorry, but are sportsmen, farmers, gamekeepers and huntsmen part of a militia?

For a sufficiently loose use of 'militia': Yes. We have to discern between recreational and professional purposes, though: Gamekeepers, hunters etc. who need to use guns as part of their job would need to go through a separate licensing process; the same applies to gun ownership for self-defense reasons, where at least a plausible need for such protection should be required. The second amendment has little to nothing to do with these groups, except for the self-defense bit.
For gun ownership for recreational purposes, I'd support a requirement to pass a background check and get a license demonstrating one's capability of using the gun type in question, as well as membership in a gun user association (think a sane NRA) that conducts regular marksmanship training and keeps a register of members and their weaponry. The 'militia' in question would be that association - 'militia' pretty much implies trained and controlled members, and that's all I want to achieve.

Man oh man, You should just move to NYC I think it would be you're kind of town. The only people that have guns there are criminals, the police, government officials and multi-millionaires. They even had a registry and used that to confiscate weapons during the 70's. If I wasn't so drunk I'd just use your argument for something like free speech, but I trust you can use your imagination for that.

[misko27]

"NYC confiscated guns in the 70s" son I am disappoint.

I could rant about that but BREAKING NEWS: ERIC CANTOR, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER LOSES IN PRIMARY TO UNKNOWN.

[FearfulJesuit]

I had just finished reading Brideshead Revisited and was all set to have a melancholy evening...then I started laughing like a maniac.