Senator During Gun Control Hearing: I Don’t Want to Hear About This Constitution Thing

I'd consider myself to be more towards the left in most respects, but why do people lost their minds over politicians wanting to rethink the second amendment. At least a little bit? Do I want ALL guns to be completely banned in the states? No. But any sane person will agree that there needs to be some sort of control. You don't want people lugging around missiles or grenade launchers in the streets. Yet, one can argue that they have the right to bear arms. The constitution doesn't elaborate what sort of arms you may, or may not use.

I find it funny most "upholders" of the second amendment don't give a damn about the first part of the amendment in the first place, which is highly suspect. You know the whole "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." They only care about the armament part of the amendment. When's the last time you saw a militia strolling down the street conducting drills? Most likely never. Militias in modern America are pretty damn hard to come by. Hell, when's the last time you saw someone complain on here about that aspect of the second amendment? The fact that militias are not common place? Yeah, seems like they really care about so-called tyrannical governments when they don't even push for citizen based armies on the regular. It's not convenient for them. There's much more work in being involved in a militia, compared to buying a gun. Which is why I'm never impressed with hardcore second amendment defenders.

They didn't have automatic, hand-held weapons back in colonial/revolutionary times. They didn't have tanks, planes, or drones back then. They didn't even have telephones, or the internet back then, let alone automobiles. A DUI back then wasn't even a thing in law practices/state legislatures. Things such as privacy concerns over the internet didn't exist either. Because it didn't even exist! Much like a AK-47 or AR-15. You can't account, or legislate, for something that you have no foreknowledge of.

They made the constitution based on what had been reality for them. Times have changed since then. Why must people cling to the constitution as if it's the new age bible, in which its words are supreme truth and law? Not matter what, and until the end of time? Sure, I uphold a lot of the constitution. It's a great document. But not every little piece of it should remain the same way forever. Need I remind you we've had to amend in since it's founding? Why are people not losing their minds over that? Former politicians seemingly put their oath aside to change it, so why not be equality mad at that as well? Why not try and revitalise the old times? It's called an amendment for a reason. Not a supreme law. I'll let you pull out your dictionaries to figure out the difference.

a reply to: Honcho
We cling to the Constitution because it is the contract between the federal government and the States. It is indeed the political bible of the US.
That document, not any Congressional legislation is the supreme law of the land. It doesn't matter one whit whether the issue is addressed in the original body of the document or as an amendment.
Congress has passed hundreds of unconstitutional laws over the years. Lots of them have been tossed by SCOTUS. Lots haven't yet been tossed.
If you want to change the contract, it needs to be done as outlined in the original contract.

a reply to: Honcho

Do I want ALL guns to be completely banned in the states? No. But any sane person will agree that there needs to be some sort of control. You don't want people lugging around missiles or grenade launchers in the streets.

There are controls in place. When is the last time you saw someone waling down the street with a missile?

The constitution doesn't elaborate what sort of arms you may, or may not use.

That is correct, And the reason is because they didnt want the conversation reduced to types/brands of firearms.

I find it funny most "upholders" of the second amendment don't give a damn about the first part of the amendment

I care about the first part as much as the rest. But I am smart enough to know without the second part, the first part is impossible.

Why must people cling to the constitution

Sure, I uphold a lot of the constitution.

Because it is the supreme law of the land upon which our nation was founded. Within it lay the means to change it if necessary. But nowhere in that document does it say people can pick and choose what parts they wish to believe in, cling to, or follow. How wonderful it must be to be above the supreme law of the land and decide which parts you obey and which you ignore. It is painful to see people treat the Constitution with such disrespect.

I'd consider myself to be more towards the left in most respect

That much is certain.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

However, the militia has much more to do than defer a standing army, which we have always had as a nation. The main purpose of the militia is to defend the common man against tyranny, abroad or at home.

No, we have not always had a standing army. The Founders wanted all armed forces to be citizen militias under the control of locally appointed, temporary officers. Standing armies in Europe were often professional mercenaries with no emotional or economic attachment to the population of the nation whose King they served. In other words, if some peasants refused to pay their taxes or contribute their share of young men to the army, the King's soldiers would have no compunction about torching their farms and villages. That is the tyranny the militias were intended to prevent. The fledgling country saw no role for itself in global politics. They needed to defend against angry natives and predatory freebooters. Armed townspeople were usually sufficient for that purpose. As I said, things have changed considerably since then.

Here's my problem: we still have militias in the form of the state National Guards, and yet many more people own military grade weapons than are enrolled in the Guard. In order to fulfill the Founders' vision, shouldn't we make participation in the Guard a condition of owning certain types of weapons? At the very least, gun owners should attend weapons safety training and maintenance and marksmanship evaluations through the Guards. This would create a more disciplined citizenry and weed out the criminals and crazies. On the other hand, we can continue to see madmen gunning down large numbers of innocent citizens in public places, because, apparently, that's not tyranny.

a reply to: diggindirt

That document, not any Congressional legislation is the supreme law of the land.

That document specifically empowers Congress to change the terms of that contract.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: diggindirt

That document, not any Congressional legislation is the supreme law of the land.

That document specifically empowers Congress to change the terms of that contract.

Congress alone doesn't get to change the Constitution. Ratification of any amendments to the Constitution requires three quarters of the state legislatures to approve it.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Well, in reality, the 2nd Amendment is probably the most misquoted piece of the Constitution.

By the NRA.

The actual text reads

"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."

However, according to the NRA, the text reads "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

They completely ignore the first part.

yes,but the first part is a statement explaining why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

In modern English It should be read as such:

"It is necessary for a free state to maintain a well regulated militia in order to ensure it`s security, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is warning us that by not having well regulated militias we are jeopardizing the security of our free state.

a reply to: vor78

Congress alone doesn't get to change the Constitution. Ratification of any amendments to the Constitution requires three quarters of the state legislatures to approve it.

Which is why it is much cheaper for the NRA to misrepresent the intent of the amendment rather than run the risk that Congress might modernize the language to make the intent clear.

a reply to: DJW001

I would disagree that the national guard could be considered a militia.
a militia is comprised of unpaid volunteers beholding to no one, the national guard are paid government soldiers beholding to the governors of their respective states.They are sworn to follow the orders of the governor and the president.
if the militias in 1776 were employed by,paid by and sworn to follow the orders of the king of England, there would never have been a revolutionary war.

a reply to: Tardacus

The only relevant interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the one issued by the Supreme Court in 2008, which states that the right of the people in 2A applies to individuals just as it does elsewhere in the Bill of Rights and that the right to keep and bear arms exists independently of membership in a militia. Those who oppose private firearms ownership can disagree with that interpretation until they're blue in the face, but unless or until the Supreme Court revisits and reverses that decision, it doesn't matter.

originally posted by: DJW001

Which is why it is much cheaper for the NRA to misrepresent the intent of the amendment rather than run the risk that Congress might modernize the language to make the intent clear.

Congress can't 'modernize' anything without the approval of the states. As for the intent of 2A, the NRA can just as easily argue that their opinion is the correct one. The only opinion that matters is the one issued by the US Supreme Court, which, incidentally, was probably closer to that of the NRA in its two most recent major gun rights decisions than their opponents.

a reply to: vor78

Those who oppose private firearms ownership can disagree with that interpretation until they're blue in the face, but unless or until the Supreme Court revisits and reverses that decision, it doesn't matter

Exactly; eventually the Supreme Court will need to revisit that decision. Also, nice strawman: you automatically portray anyone who wants to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment as "opposing private firearms ownership." It's all or nothing to some people.

a reply to: vor78

Congress can't 'modernize' anything without the approval of the states.

Exactly. Can you imagine how much it would cost for the NRA to bribe all those state legislatures?

a reply to: Tardacus

Even if a person buys the 'militia argument' against an individual right to firearms ownership (and I don't buy it, BTW), the legal definition of militia in US law is such that it would include everyone for the purposes of conferring a right under 2A, whether they're in an organized militia or not.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: vor78

Those who oppose private firearms ownership can disagree with that interpretation until they're blue in the face, but unless or until the Supreme Court revisits and reverses that decision, it doesn't matter

Exactly; eventually the Supreme Court will need to revisit that decision. Also, nice strawman: you automatically portray anyone who wants to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment as "opposing private firearms ownership." It's all or nothing to some people.

Well, that's what we're talking about here, isn't it? Either 2A does or it does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. There's not much room for a middle ground given the way the amendment is written.

a reply to: Tardacus

I would disagree that the national guard could be considered a militia.
a militia is comprised of unpaid volunteers beholding to no one, the national guard are paid government soldiers beholding to the governors of their respective states.They are sworn to follow the orders of the governor and the president.

Wrong; militias are often compensated for their time; after all, they have crops to tend and businesses to run. Militias are also sworn to follow the orders of their officers, including elected officials. Any armed group that is not loyal to their elected officials are not a militia, they are a mob.

if the militias in 1776 were employed by,paid by and sworn to follow the orders of the king of England, there would never have been a revolutionary war.

Correct; they were sworn to obey the orders of General Washington and his staff, who also compensated them. Washington constantly complained about the militia's lack of discipline, and preferred the professional soldiers who had served in the British Army, as well as the Hessian mercenaries.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: vor78

Congress can't 'modernize' anything without the approval of the states.

Exactly. Can you imagine how much it would cost for the NRA to bribe all those state legislatures?

I'm sure it would be expensive. The NRA's lobbying budget runs about $3-4 million per year. They don't have Nanny Bloomberg pledging $50 million like the antis do. It would be tough on the NRA, I agree.

a reply to: vor78

Well, that's what we're talking about here, isn't it? Either 2A does or it does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. There's not much room for a middle ground given the way the amendment is written.

And yet this argument has gone on for pages... can you understand why someone who is seriously attempting to pass reasonable and constitutional legislation would want to avoid a debate guaranteed to turn into a circus? Have you noticed how many members have accused others of treason simply because they disagreed over ambiguous language?

originally posted by: DJW001
And yet this argument has gone on for pages... can you understand why someone who is seriously attempting to pass reasonable and constitutional legislation would want to avoid a debate guaranteed to turn into a circus? Have you noticed how many members have accused others of treason simply because they disagreed over ambiguous language?

Whether its reasonable is certainly a matter of opinion and whether its constitutional probably is as well. That's why you have to have the argument, rather than just ignore the Constitution and 2A.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: DJW001

I would disagree that the national guard could be considered a militia.
a militia is comprised of unpaid volunteers beholding to no one, the national guard are paid government soldiers beholding to the governors of their respective states.They are sworn to follow the orders of the governor and the president.
if the militias in 1776 were employed by,paid by and sworn to follow the orders of the king of England, there would never have been a revolutionary war.

the national guard was created by legislation in 1903. prior to that militias were not officially the national guard.

The militia act of 1792 defined the enrolled and unenrolled militia. basically anyone who could wield a weapon other than a few public officials was a member of the unenrolled militia.

The 2nd could not refer to the national guard because it was a century plus away in the future. and any sort of organized militia by the USGOV at all could not have been referred to in the BOR because the militia act was not passed until about half a year after the BOR.

Additionally when the framers argued for ratification they all are on record about who was entitled to bear firearms. we have the transcripts, minutes, letters, editorials of the various delegates. They all held bearing firearms as an individual right. We do not have to guess or argue over what the wording of the second meant because they testified repeatedly about the 2nd in their presentations and debates in their states when they got the states to ratify it. their intent is a matter of extant historical records. The other side does not like this historical record because there is not one written document taking the other side to muddy the waters enough to provide cover for deception.

We also don't have to guess whether they meant blunderbusses or muskets only. Thier written intent was to ensure the common man had weapons on parity with soldiers in a standing army such that the common man was able to go toe to toe with or at least present a credible deterrent to a standing army.