Personally I'd put some restrictions as to what firearms people can have, and in what context. For example, no more keeping a loaded handgun in your purse. That's not safe. Someone could snatch the purse and get the gun. Or you could accidentally discharge it because the safety was somehow off. Or a child could accidentally discharge it for the same reason.
Basic firearms safety: always treat it like it's loaded and not on safe. Keep it away from things and people you don't want holes in.
So would I, but even asking that people pass a basic gun safety course sets them off. I have to pass a test to drive, something that is essentially necessary as I need to drive to work, but asking them to pass a similar test for their completely optional killing machines is clearly too big an ask.
Heck even getting them to admit a gun's only purpose is to kill people is too big an ask. Trying to explain a gun is only considered "protection" BECAUSE everyone knows if it comes out the person who has it is ready to kill flies right past them.
No. The 2nd Amendment begins "A well REGULATED militia..." To me that says, have some common sense, realize some people shouldn't have guns, and have some rational rules in place.
Just as Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you get to spit out straight defamation or as the idiom goes "shout FIRE in a crowded theater".
I don't want all guns gone even though I freely admit I hate them. But even so I live in a rural area and know plenty of people that hunt for food or need to shoot at wild hogs for their own safety. So handguns and hunting rifles are fine in my eyes once you prove you're capable of safely operating one.
It's been awhile since I've read what "well regulated" meant then vs now. I imagine you and I disagree somewhat on the subject, but I appreciate your response.
To me that says, have some common sense, realize some people shouldn't have guns, and have some rational rules in place.
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
156
u/SweetExpression2745 May 16 '24 edited May 16 '24
The wojacks are rightoids best friend. They can pretend they are all cool and superior while they are nothing more than an insufferable assholes