Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales

[VikingsGuy]

So you don't believe in amendments 11-27? Slavery... Black/brown people's right to vote...Woman's right to vote....limits on presidential terms...

In fairness I don't think that is his point - rather I think he means regarding the "decided" specific topics of those 10 amendments the compromise was already taken and we need to live with those pros/cons. Which has logic and merit if you can definitively agree on the meaning of all of those words at the time of the compromise. But history shows there was no such clarity at the time. In many cases they just kicked the can down the road (see the initial approach to slavery as an example)

 

[Shangobango]

You're avoiding the point. They all involved further compromise.

I’m not avoiding anything. I am speaking specifically about the Bill of Rights. Do any of the other amendments negate the first ten?

As far as getting sucked in, Im with ya. Im out.

 

[Shangobango]

So you don't believe in amendments 11-27? Slavery... Black/brown people's right to vote...Woman's right to vote....limits on presidential terms...

Once again do 11 thru 27 alter 1-10 in any way besides extending them to more people?

I am talking about the Bill of Rights. Not the Bill of Suggestions to be Amended at a Later Time.

 

[Shangobango]

The 14th made a monumental change to the Bill of Rights by extending those right to all humans in the US and for the first time applying them to state and local governments as well - definitely something none of the Founders considered in the day.

Fair point.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

I’m not avoiding anything. I am speaking specifically about the Bill of Rights. Do any of the other amendments negate the first ten?

As far as getting sucked in, Im with ya. Im out.

They do not. Again, I interpret the individual right of 2A the same way you do, but we can't refuse to acknowledge that there aren't other logical interpretations. It does us no good to just shout down a disagreement based on an absolutist interpretation.

 

[Shangobango]

They do not. Again, I interpret the individual right of 2A the same way you do, but we can't refuse to acknowledge that there aren't other logical interpretations. It does us no good to just shout down a disagreement based on an absolutist interpretation.

Fair point. I have never understood why I get so heated about this issue. Maybe it is because I truly think that the 2nd is there to allow us to protect the rest of the Constitution.

I also want to be clear that I am not one of these people out touting the virtue of a new civil war or armed rebellion. Ask anyone who has spent time in a war zone how the folks living in said war zone fair. Anybody rooting for that is insane.

I have to go earn my salary now.
I hope everyone has a wonderful rest of the day.

 

[Fullquiver]

Now this I have to disagree with. The freedom of speech does not protect you from other's opinions of you. You can say what you want, and others can call you a bigot if they want. They can even treat you as a bigot if they want (assuming there's no physical altercation); none of that has any bearing on your freedom to say what you want. Your comment about indulging another's fantasy is ludicrous. Social pressure may guide your speech, and you may be encouraged to not say all sorts of things, but you technically have the freedom to say them. If you're skin is thick enough and you genuinely don't care whether people hate your guts, you can say all sorts of things.

Slow down a second..
That's not what I was saying. What I was talking about is not opinion but government legislated speech control.. In Canada it is a crime to misgender (to call a biological man a man if he believes (fantasy) he is a woman is an example) So if you don't follow what he believes about himself to be true and say so it is crime in Canada... Hate speech which is pretty loosely defined is a crime.. I am not advocating for the thought police quite the opposite..

 

[LWC55]

They do not. Again, I interpret the individual right of 2A the same way you do, but we can't refuse to acknowledge that there aren't other logical interpretations. It does us no good to just shout down a disagreement based on an absolutist interpretation.

How is it logical to assume that 2A is referring to states rights when 1-9 are individual rights and 10 is states rights? I just don't understand that reasoning. Also, I'd be glad to listen to any nuanced conversation. But if that means weakening the 2A to appease the gun control folks...I can't support it.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

How is it logical to assume that 2A is referring to states rights when 1-9 are individual rights and 10 is states rights? I just don't understand that reasoning. Also, I'd be glad to listen to any nuanced conversation. But if that means weakening the 2A to appease the gun control folks...I can't support it.

I find the phrase "weakening the 2A" to be an interesting one, really. For the sake of argument, depending on one's interpretation, extending the right to bear arms to random citizens could be seen as "weakening the 2A" if they intended the right to be granted to members of a "well regulated militia."

 

[MTGomer]

we do have freedom of speech, however it does not include, Hate, obscenity,

Lol

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

How is it logical to assume that 2A is referring to states rights when 1-9 are individual rights and 10 is states rights? I just don't understand that reasoning. Also, I'd be glad to listen to any nuanced conversation. But if that means weakening the 2A to appease the gun control folks...I can't support it.

I can't argue that one as I agree that the Bill of Rights is generally directed at personal rights. I couldn't argue that it was designed to be exclusively individual rights either though, as I'm not familiar with writings by the framers that state as much. Not saying they aren't out there, it's just a discussion I wouldn't wade into as simply don't know.

In my opinion, the nuance of the 2A comes to what is an infringement? Easy to say anything that limits someone's access to arms is an infringement. Hard to find legal standing for that.

 

[Sytes]

I find it interesting some proclaim our State's, National Guard is the militia as envisioned by our founding fathers. Our, State's, National Guard is directly funded by our Federal dollars and these, "State militias" are the seven reserve components of our United States Armed Forces...

 

[Shangobango]

I find the phrase "weakening the 2A" to be an interesting one, really. For the sake of argument, depending on one's interpretation, extending the right to bear arms to random citizens could be seen as "weakening the 2A" if they intended the right to be granted to members of a "well regulated militia."

ughh, waiting on my truck at the carwash.

You conveniently left off the part “ the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed” to make your point. Seems to be a progressively more common mistake in for the folks who don’t recognize the right to individual gun ownership.

 

[TOGIE]

I find it interesting some proclaim our State's, National Guard is the militia as envisioned by our founding fathers. Our, State's, National Guard is directly funded by our Federal dollars and these, "State militias" are the seven reserve components of our United States Armed Forces...

i was thinking about this as well.

colorado's national guard is also the president's army/air force, etc.

i often think about how our military took an oath to defend the constitution from threats both foreign and domestic. ergo, our military and maybe more specifically our state "militias" would disobey federal orders to protect the state's, and the citizen's within that state, rights as outlined in the constution

an extreme thought experiment that is unlikely to ever have to be worked out in real life.

i want to stress it again, it's a thought experiment.

but it is a thing i've thought about, and it's not an impossibility

 

[Wildabeest]

I’ve tried to stay on the sidelines on this one, but..

I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that the Constitution provided a mechanism for updating it (via amendments) because the Founding Fathers understood that things will change over time and the original document may not suffice on its own into perpetuity. Therefore, I find the argument that because 2A says what it says, then that’s “the end all be all for all time” to be out of sync with the overall premise that the Constitution was designed to be updated to reflect the current times.

There are other many strong and valid arguments contained within these 400+ posts both for and against any additional regulation or firearms (and ammo). I just don’t think the 2A language absolutism is a valid one. We should debate what is right or wrong, and based on the outcome of that debate, adjust our governing documents accordingly. That might be additional or modified amendments or changes to laws or regulations. And those could either loosen or tighten things for gun owners.

I guess I’ll compare it to the e-bike debate. Times have changed, technology has changed. It’s OK to debate whether the regulations need to change to adapt to it. That can, and should, be done - and without without name calling, offensive labels and hyperbolic rhetoric. For the vast majority, that happens on this forum. We just shouldn’t use “because it’s always been that way” as the rationale for defending our position.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

ughh, waiting on my truck at the carwash.

You conveniently left off the part “ the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed” to make your point. Seems to be a progressively more common mistake in for the folks who don’t recognize the right to individual gun ownership.

No, I didn't "conveniently leave it off". Why though is it always okay to leave out the "well regulated militia" part? If the purpose of the 2A was to provide for a well regulated militia, then 2A advocates should have no issue with gun registration. How else would they be called up to serve in the "well regulated militia?"

Don't get too upset Shangobango, I'm just throwing it out there.

 

[LWC55]

I find the phrase "weakening the 2A" to be an interesting one, really. For the sake of argument, depending on one's interpretation, extending the right to bear arms to random citizens could be seen as "weakening the 2A" if they intended the right to be granted to members of a "well regulated militia."

Whether the reason for 2A is clear or not, i.e. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” the limitation placed on the newly formed federal government itself could not be clearer: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

I’ve tried to stay on the sidelines on this one, but..

I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that the Constitution provided a mechanism for updating it (via amendments) because the Founding Fathers understood that things will change over time and the original document may not suffice on its own into perpetuity. Therefore, I find the argument that because 2A says what it says, then that’s “the end all be all for all time” to be out of sync with the overall premise that the Constitution was designed to be updated to reflect the current times.

There are other many strong and valid arguments contained within these 400+ posts both for and against any additional regulation or firearms (and ammo). I just don’t think the 2A language absolutism is a valid one. We should debate what is right or wrong, and based on the outcome of that debate, adjust our governing documents accordingly. That might be additional or modified amendments or changes to laws or regulations. And those could either loosen or tighten things for gun owners.

I guess I’ll compare it to the e-bike debate. Times have changed, technology has changed. It’s OK to debate whether the regulations need to change to adapt to it. That can, and should, be done - and without without name calling, offensive labels and hyperbolic rhetoric. For the vast majority, that happens on this forum. We just shouldn’t use “because it’s always been that way” as the rationale for defending our position.

Amendments and updating are fine, so long as they reflect my opinion.

 

[Sytes]

Interesting the difference between military enlisted Oath vs civilian Federal LEO's

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Federal LEO Oath

I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I find it interesting some proclaim our State's, National Guard is the militia as envisioned by our founding fathers. Our, State's, National Guard is directly funded by our Federal dollars and these, "State militias" are the seven reserve components of our United States Armed Forces...

You can still read the 2A to cover a "regulated state militia" that is not the US Armed Forces coopted National Guard. But such things no longer exist - hence Ginsburg's view that 2A has no present practical effect. It's an interestingly literalist, time-locked view of the amendment from her - maybe Ginsburg learned something from her years of friendship with Scalia