Louisiana Shooter Was Far Right Nut

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll say it again: Smart guns.

[KUSA]

I'll say it again: Smart guns.

A smart gun would not have changed anything in this case.

[Pyrrho]

You have the right to make whiskey, but you cannot sell it to 5 year olds, and there is also a limit to proof even for adults. Just like having speed limits is not anti car.

And I can't buy an RPG or a 20mm cannon.

You seem like one of those goddamn commie pinko fag sissy foreigners!  We should all have RPGs and 20mm cannons.  It is our god-given right, as indicated in the Constitution, to be able to arm ourselves!

I have not yet killed my quota of people, and I need to be able to make up for lost time!

Now, where can I buy a few nuclear missiles....

[tjakey]

Humans have rights, but objects do not.

And the second amendment gives Americans the right to own those objects.

Actually, the 2ed Amendment, as currently interpreted by a Supreme Court heavily influenced by conservative ideology and the weapons manufactures, has decided that Americans have the right to threaten everyone around them with concealed but instant death.

However, an amendment whose first four words are “A well regulated Militia...” could easily be interpreted to allow for any regulation that protects the public safety. Indeed, the next phrase of the Amendment “being necessary to the security of a free State, supports just such an interpretation. A state where everyone is constantly threatened by heavily armed individuals; in schools, in movie theaters, in churches could, and should be, seen as a state where freedom has been compromised.

As to the last bit “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” The “people” granted the right to bear arms is the same “We the people” of the Constitution. A society formed with the idea of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness. Being gunned down in a movie theater or a church prayer meeting, by a madman who was allowed to own a gun because that is what the gun manufacturers demanded from the government, could, and should be, correctly be interpreted as the kind of thing the Constitution, and its Amendments, were written to prevent.

As it stands the current interpretations of the 2ed Amendment are in stark contrast to the intent of those who wrote the Constitution. But what else to expect from a government that, long ago, sold itself to the highest bidder. And there are no higher bidders than those who profit from violence, war, and death.

[Minimalist]

However, an amendment whose first four words are “A well regulated Militia...”

And let's not forget what George Washington thought of the fucking militia.

To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff.

[AFTT47]

As it stands the current interpretations of the 2ed Amendment are in stark contrast to the intent of those who wrote the Constitution. But what else to expect from a government that, long ago, sold itself to the highest bidder. And there are no higher bidders than those who profit from violence, war, and death.[/color][/size][/font]

I don't think that is correct. As far as I know, all the founders were against the government having the power to disarm the citizens.

Be careful here because this is exactly the same game the religious right plays with the First Amendment and the establishment clause - claiming the founders didn't really want to keep the church out of government. Most of us are familiar with the founder's writings on the subject of church-state separation which make clear their intentions. I'm too lazy to go searching for it but I believe it's the same with the 2nd Amendment. Whether they would have felt the same way in today's world is another matter. That's what amendments are for.

[Pyrrho]

As it stands the current interpretations of the 2ed Amendment are in stark contrast to the intent of those who wrote the Constitution. But what else to expect from a government that, long ago, sold itself to the highest bidder. And there are no higher bidders than those who profit from violence, war, and death.[/color][/size][/font]

I don't think that is correct. As far as I know, all the founders were against the government having the power to disarm the citizens.

Be careful here because this is exactly the same game the religious right plays with the First Amendment and the establishment clause - claiming the founders didn't really want to keep the church out of government. Most of us are familiar with the founder's writings on the subject of church-state separation which make clear their intentions. I'm too lazy to go searching for it but I believe it's the same with the 2nd Amendment. Whether they would have felt the same way in today's world is another matter. That's what amendments are for.

So, what, then, is the meaning of the words "A well regulated Militia" in the second amendment?  Is it meaningless verbiage?

[Mr.wizard]

As it stands the current interpretations of the 2ed Amendment are in stark contrast to the intent of those who wrote the Constitution. But what else to expect from a government that, long ago, sold itself to the highest bidder. And there are no higher bidders than those who profit from violence, war, and death.[/color][/size][/font]

I don't think that is correct. As far as I know, all the founders were against the government having the power to disarm the citizens.

Be careful here because this is exactly the same game the religious right plays with the First Amendment and the establishment clause - claiming the founders didn't really want to keep the church out of government. Most of us are familiar with the founder's writings on the subject of church-state separation which make clear their intentions. I'm too lazy to go searching for it but I believe it's the same with the 2nd Amendment. Whether they would have felt the same way in today's world is another matter. That's what amendments are for.

That's not correct because militias where sanctioned by the government, they tracked who had guns, had home inspections, and told them what guns they could buy. Militia laws where some of the longest pieces of regulation on the books, in fact citizens forming a group with unsanctioned firearms where considered mobs and where illegal. The intention of the second amendment was so the government could choose who would get the firearms in order to protect the government from being overthrown.

[AFTT47]

So, what, then, is the meaning of the words "A well regulated Militia" in the second amendment?  Is it meaningless verbiage?

I'm not prepared to say. I will say this: I have had a theist argue that since the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion," there is no prohibition on putting a Ten Commandments monument in a courthouse because congress is making no law.

Much of the Constitution is worded generally which I guess is normal for a document of that type. It is not precisely worded like you would expect a law to be. Judges interpret it when need be. If you read what the founders wrote on the subjects of the first and (I believe 2nd) amendments, their intentions are clear.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll say it again: Smart guns.

A smart gun would not have changed anything in this case.

Coupled with a psychological test that must be passed in order to purchase said smart gun, it would have had a much better chance than the current state of affairs.