Do you believe that the Second Amendment is arcane?

[Mr. Reactionary]

The Second Amendment as a whole is not arcane or archaic, but one of the theories about its purpose certainly is. The theory of purpose i'm referring to is that the the right to bear arms is needed so that the people can protect themselves from their own government should their government become tyrannical. That theory no longer has any utility; it's archaic. Our government has nuclear weapons, for Pete's sake. If our citizenry had to go to war against their own government, like a revolution, it is easy to see who would lose.

If you think the federal government is going to deploy nuclear weapons against civilians in the heartland you are either crazy or explaining why in the hell we need guns to shoot bureaucrats in the first place. If they nuke civilians here, they are so fundamentally evil that they should clearly be violently overthrown and its rather defeatist to just say "well if the government ever does become Fascist we should just accept it because Fascists are mean and will hurt us". Besides, the idea that you can police individual neighborhoods and hearts and minds with nukes is lunacy. We arent just going to line up in straight lines in matching uniforms in open fields and await the US Army like a bunch of redcoats. Guns let you shoot the bastard operating the tank from a distance when he gets out to pee. Guns let you shoot the bureaucrat lawyers illegally taking people to court. Guns let you shoot patroling foot squads from a rooftop. If you can get close enough, guns let you assassinate officers and politicians running the fascist machine. And there are 350 million of them in private hands so they can never just round up all the guns. I'm not trying to be rude but Ive always found the "we can never beat dictatorships through guerrilla warfare because NUKES!" argument stupid and ignorant of reality. Look at the politics of the bulk of soldiers. You really telling me they are gonna obey orders to kill american civilians?

[Mr. Reactionary]

It always blows my mind how blindly and willingly the American people accept that mass shootings just happen once in a while because the founding fathers wrote a vague sentence on a piece of paper some 250 years ago.

Constitutions are supposed to provide a framework for the government's actions. A constitution is supposed to be a very practical document. In the United States, however, it has become a sacred text, as the founding fathers have evolved into godlike figures with a superior moral authority that never existed in reality. That is why the US constitution is rarely changed or even amended, unlike the constitutions of most other democracies.

I understand that the fundamental scepticism against the government and a general focus on the individual is part of the American culture. But the second amendment is, just like many other parts of the US constitution, impractical and must be changed.

How should it be changed?  What other parts [like many other parts of the US constitution] should be changed?

Not who you were replying to, but: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

Or, at the very least, revive the uniform legal understanding that existed for over 200 years after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment: that it doesn't place any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. There's a reason that the Supreme Court unanimously held in 1939 that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun: because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of "a well regulated militia."

Miller was a default judgment that frankly was moot when SCOTUS heard the case as Miller died prior to oral arguments and his lawyer didn't bother going all the way to DC to defend his successful Circuit court victory as his client was no longer paying him. SCOTUS accepted the entirety of the government's argument in toto since no one rebutted a single argument. Even if you were to accept that the only weapons protected must be militia weapons, Miller makes no logical sense as the same act the Court upheld in Miller banned militia weapons (machine guns). And thats again assuming that short barrel shotguns have no militia purpose which is frankly absurd as they are trench clearing weapons.

There were multiple SCOTUS cases in the 1800s that say the 2nd amendment is an individual right and is not in any way linked to government service. There were multiple saying the same thing after Miller. Miller is the aberration and again that's because literally only 1 side presented arguments so SCOTUS accepted many incorrect things as true because the opposing party didn't rebut anything.

By your own logic, if only weapons used by the militia are protected, how in the hell is it OK to ban machine guns which are undeniably militia weapons? I don't know of a single founder who would agree that the 2nd amendment is very permissive of gun bans as long as they were being applied to people not actually mustered for militia dury. That's just an absurd take. All a tyrant would have to do is disband the militia from active duty, confiscate their private weapons, and then when called out on derp back that "muh you only have rights while actively fighting in my name". One of the many selling points of the militia is that since they provide their own private weapons there is less need for government supply lines. You are arguing that the moment the militia is disbanded, all private gun ownership ceases and the militia can totally be deprived of their guns even though that literally makes the militia useless at the next muster as everyone's weapons were taken in between deployments. How can you show up with your own private weapons if private weapon ownership is otherwise banned. That's stupid.

Plus the State regulation thing is obviously a red herring as incorporation of the bill of rights didn't begin until the 20th century. That states might could ban muskets in 1840 has no more bearing on 2nd amendment jurisprudence than the fact that states could also ban speech in 1840 has to 1st amendment jurisprudence. And there is zero legitimate argument that amendments 1 and 3 - 8 are individual rights to be treated on par with each other but not #2. None.

The Constitution is actually very clear, there is a right of all people to own and carry arms. Fixating on the non-modifiers in the prefratory clause at the expense of the plain language of the operative clause is a tortured reading. If there was an amendment that read "A well informed electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. " are you really arguing that the amendment only applies to the subset of persons who are eligible voters (electorate) and only then to read books about news and politics that keep them informed about policy issues? That's absurd.

[Mr. Reactionary]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

So when do you expect the world to randomly turn into 1984? The government is never gonna try to take away your rights.

Lol. 1984 started last month dude. Try to keep up.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I mean, it's not some special wisdom I alone possess; the historical facts are what they are  If you look at the wording of most similar laws passed by the states at the time and the way that language would've been widely interpreted at the time, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Second Amendment referred specifically to state militias and did not create any sort of Constitutional right for private individuals to own guns, much less to do so without substantial government regulation.  

What laws do you have in mind? The PA Constitution of 1776 has:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

That seems to be pretty clearly a clearly worded defense of the individual right to bear arms, with both individual self-defense and militia purposes in mind. And it emphasizes the militia purpose not as a contrast to individual rights, but as a contrast to maintaining a professional army.

Admittedly a few early state bills of rights were worded to say "right to keep and bear arms for public purposes" which Im willing to agree suggests a limited militia purpose.  But thats not how the 2nd amendment or the bulk of state bills of rights were worded so Id argue the lack of those 3 words clearly indicates public or private purpose absent any limiting language. St. George Tucker certainly interpreted it this way in his near contemporaneous commentaries on the constitution.

[Mr. Reactionary]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

That serves as an indictment on your character and no one else's. The smart thing to do would be to immediately return all of your guns, otherwise you are complicit in the scheme of the NRA to hide behind the guise of the Second Amendment to do nothing about gun violence.

It's going to be a short Civil War II when your side ain't got no weaponry. Glad I have people like Mr. R keeping me safe and protecting the ideals of America from Gen Z fascists trying to strip it all away.

e: FTR, I voted Undecided back in May since I was a standard anti-gun northeasterner but didn't want to vote No on such an extremist question. The last month has all but confirmed just what I was leaving enough room for - that we are not a civilized country that is post-political violence. Very dangerous extremist ideologies are now floating in the mainstream because of the economic doom suddenly faced by millions. I liked to believe that we lived in a permanent liberal democracy (with the prospect of better) and the only people to fear were lone wolf terrorists with nothing to live for who we needed to take guns from, but some very nasty ideas have taken a deep stronghold over violent swaths of the populace and are supported by mainstream outlets. Guns are needed now more than ever to protect ourselves from mobs that our government cannot control.

Update: I sold 1 gun this weekend and bought 6 more today without paperwork. "Loophole" closes at midnight tonight so from here on out im just going to manufacture my own guns which means they don't need serial numbers. Your move antigunners.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Article

8.3 Million new guns sold since March. 40% to first time buyers. Clearly a lot of people don't think the 2nd amendment is arcane.

And none of my gun buying and selling is captured in these stats.

Buy while you can; a storm is brewing.