I am beginning to reconsider my stance on guns.

[Razors Edge ★]

7 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I am no constitutional expert but have read it with interest over the years.  The 2nd Amendment states the "Militia" should be well regulated, not the ownership of arms.  That part is protected as a right. 

My interpretation of the language is:  The "well regulated" militia is a statement and the arms ownership is a right. 

It is a full and COMPLETE statement.  IOW, no period to separate one from the other. Ignore one, ignore the other.  But, hey, maybe the Founding Fathers must have foreseen the mess we have created and wanted it this way? Similar to how they chose not to include automobiles in the Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Wilbur ★]

13 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

It is a full and COMPLETE statement.  IOW, no period to separate one from the other. Ignore one, ignore the other.  But, hey, maybe the Founding Fathers must have foreseen the mess we have created and wanted it this way? Similar to how they chose not to include automobiles in the Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Perhaps, and I assume that is your opinion,yet, the SCOTUS has ruled that the "right" is to bear arms provided they are used within the laws.  

 

[UglyBob]

22 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

It is a full and COMPLETE statement.  IOW, no period to separate one from the other. Ignore one, ignore the other.  But, hey, maybe the Founding Fathers must have foreseen the mess we have created and wanted it this way? Similar to how they chose not to include automobiles in the Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The constitution assures the rights of the individuals. That's been determined in the courts. It's the right of the individuals to keep and bear arms which allows the states to form a militia in order to assure the states are able to fight back against federal over reach if necessary. It also allows for the populous to form a militia if the state does the same thing. Either way, the individual has the right to keep arms.   

[maddmaxx ★]

30 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I am no constitutional expert but have read it with interest over the years.  The 2nd Amendment states the "Militia" should be well regulated, not the ownership of arms.  That part is protected as a right. 

My interpretation of the language is:  The "well regulated" militia is a statement and the arms ownership is a right. 

Others believe that the right comes from the need to have a well regulated militia.  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  That's a comma in the sentence, not a period.  

[maddmaxx ★]

Double post. 

[Wilbur ★]

Just now, maddmaxx said:

Others believe that the right comes from the need to have a well regulated militia.  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  That's a comma in the sentence, not a period.  

The. SCOTUS is very clear that a "militia" is not required.  The term "militia" means the public at large with the exception of those in political positions. It does not mean a formal regiment as many believe. 

[Kzoo]

3 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Others believe that the right comes from the need to have a well regulated militia.

And as UB stated, you can't have a militia (however well regulated) without the people first having arms.  First the egg and then the chicken...

[Razors Edge ★]

11 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

And as UB stated, you can't have a militia (however well regulated) without the people first having arms.  First the egg and then the chicken...

But once you have that militia, you regulate it. And if the folks aren't in the "militia", then the whole sentence is useless.  It would simply state "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  It does not state that.

Luckily, SCOTUS has determined that past precedence is very mutable, so that modern interpretation of not tying the first and second parts of a sentence together can change with the stroke of a pen.

[Randomguy]

It occurs to me that there is very selective use of intent of the framers of the constitution/BoR's on all kinds of things.  The whole separation of church and state shows nothing but abuse by the christian block, for instance.  My point is that things that we all thought were givens turned out to be takens instead, and we can amend, rip, replace, whatever to any article based on current conditions and needs.

So, based on us living in the present and not in the 1700's, we can amend to fit current conditions.  Something is broken and needs to change for common sense reasons, and there needs to be an amendment with some terms and conditions.

As to your involvment, jsharrt, I would think you not culpable in any way.  The scouts seem more likely than not to have better ideals on right/wrong, and they are learning firearm usage and safety in what seems a pretty reasonable way.  Better to learn from you than by the neighbor muslim terrorist.  Plinking cans or boxes stuffed with newspaper is fun, and some of these kids will eventually go hunting, so learning to be safe is good and might save their oily hides from accidents.  Teach away, enjoy, and realize that you aren't part of the whole problem.

[BR46]

I don't think we have a gun problem we have a society problem. 

Shooting over sunglasses 

https://www.wisn.com/article/family-man-killed-near-marquette-university-over-designer-glasses/35440711

Shooting over a missing hamburger 

https://www.wisn.com/article/milwaukee-woman-sentenced-shooting-george-webb-server-face-wisconsin/43342306

Yelling slow down 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2023/03/20/police-arrest-man-in-fatal-road-rage-shooting-on-milwaukees-northside/70030283007/

Too much mayo on a sandwich 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/us/subway-worker-mayo-dispute-killing/index.html

 

[Wilbur ★]

53 minutes ago, Fret Buzz said:

But once you have that militia, you regulate it. And if the folks aren't in the "militia", then the whole sentence is useless.  It would simply state "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  It does not state that.

Luckily, SCOTUS has determined that past precedence is very mutable, so that modern interpretation of not tying the first and second parts of a sentence together can change with the stroke of a pen.

 

"The most august comma dispute involves the Constitution of the United States. Though no one would change a word in the document, printers have felt free over the years to move its commas about. The Constitution’s Second Amendment says, ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ Some justices maintain that the wording before the second comma is superfluous. The meaning of the amendment, they say, is contained in the sentence: ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’. That reading allows every American to carry a gun.

In addition to the arguments raised by its first two commas, the third comma in the Second Amendment raises eyebrows in the twenty-first century. It looks as if it has violated one of the few things on which all the stylebooks are agreed: commas should not break sentences. However, in the eighteenth century, it was not uncommon for a comma to separate subject and predicate. What was good punctuation then is bad indeed now."

A little enlightenment for you, sir. 

https://esuscotland.org.uk/a-history-of-punctuation-the-comma/

[Razors Edge ★]

4 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Some justices

Can you run by Webster's and grab me a definition for the word "some"?

While you're are out wandering, can you also come up with a good reason to include the " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," if not as a modifier for the rest of the sentence?  

[Wilbur ★]

1 minute ago, Fret Buzz said:

Can you run by Webster's and grab me a definition for the word "some"?

While you're are out wandering, can you also come up with a good reason to include the " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," if not as a modifier for the rest of the sentence?  

I don't have to run sir. It has been decided in both language and law. 

[maddmaxx ★]

3 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I don't have to run sir. It has been decided in both language and law. 

That was only decided in 2008's case of Heller vs the District of Columbia.  And even in that case the justices made it clear that:

In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”  

Prior to that in United States vs Miller the court ruled:

The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

As you can see, the Supreme Courts opinions on the 2nd and the militia provision are fluid.  One can only hope that eventually the carnage will prompt the people to vote in such a manner that the court will change and the opinions will change again.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

1 hour ago, UglyBob said:

The constitution assures the rights of the individuals.

It's important to remember this when reading the Constitution.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights state the rights the people have - either from God or inherently from nature (depending upon which one of the Founders you consider) - that the government may not take away.

Note the difference between that and rights granted by the government to the people, which is not how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were framed and written.  Look at the constitutions of most other countries around the world, and you'll see that rights flow down from the government to the people. 

The Founders designed the Constitution so the power rested with the people first.  The ratification of the Constitution was done by states, where the people in each state chose their representatives to send to respective conventions, and the representatives in those conventions ratified on behalf of the people.  Not the state legislatures, not the governors, nor the representatives Continental Congress operating under the Articles of Confederation.  As you read through the Bill of Rights, you see that the language is constructed to frame those rights as related to a person or to people - not framed to relate to the government or officials of the government.

In particular, the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Wilbur ★]

26 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”  

 

We could argue this all day long and supply case studies for a year.  Scalia just clarified the wording.  Arms are good for legal use.  The constitution does not say you can use them in any way you want.  It has to be within the laws.  

I am not saying there aren't problems in the US.  There are, but laws only limit the lawful. 

[maddmaxx ★]

4 hours ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

It's important to remember this when reading the Constitution.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights state the rights the people have - either from God or inherently from nature (depending upon which one of the Founders you consider) - that the government may not take away.

Note the difference between that and rights granted by the government to the people, which is not how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were framed and written.  Look at the constitutions of most other countries around the world, and you'll see that rights flow down from the government to the people. 

The Founders designed the Constitution so the power rested with the people first.  The ratification of the Constitution was done by states, where the people in each state chose their representatives to send to respective conventions, and the representatives in those conventions ratified on behalf of the people.  Not the state legislatures, not the governors, nor the representatives Continental Congress operating under the Articles of Confederation.  As you read through the Bill of Rights, you see that the language is constructed to frame those rights as related to a person or to people - not framed to relate to the government or officials of the government.

In particular, the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And thank god they can change their mind.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

4 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

And thank god they can change their mind.

True!

When people change their mind, they need to be careful about what they get after they've changed it: