Gunman kills at least 20, injures 42 in Florida gay club shooting.

[grumbler]

AFAICT the 2nd is rooted in the idea, held by certain founders, that standing armies are a menace to liberty and free countries must rely on a militia--called up when needed, and disbanded promptly after. This was our general policy throughout the Revolution, and proved to be singularly idiotic and misguided. Every twelve months, just as raw militia were beginning to harden, they'd reach the end of service and skedaddle. We fought most of the war with an endless parade of rookies, which drove Washington to despair. As such, you could argue that the 2nd was a bad idea even at the time. Almost as bad as the choice, backed by the same people, to deny the Continental Congress any power to tax. So we had hyperinflation and inept soldiers. If it weren't for foreign aid we'd have lost the war.

Except that the Second Amendment was specifically designed to allow a completely different type of militia than the one you are talking about. It isn't an accident that the founders used the phrase "well-regulated militia" rather than just "militia." In fact, someone already probably made this point in this thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

the one whose minority status seeps through somehow (via name, school, previous employment, etc.) is the one who doesn't get the job--they're a consequence of the way we categorize ourselves.

[[citation needed]]

My experience has been precisely the opposite.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except that the Second Amendment was specifically designed to allow a completely different type of militia than the one you are talking about. It isn't an accident that the founders used the phrase "well-regulated militia" rather than just "militia." In fact, someone already probably made this point in this thread.

One, there's no such thing as collective rights. Two, it says, "shall not be infringed".

[Berzerker]

only one right mentioned in the 2nd amendment to the bill of rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms

the reason why this right shall not be infringed is because states have militia powers, ie the power to have their own armies...

Normally this would mean Congress cant infringe upon our right, but the Constitution gives Congress power to regulate militias. If I was a militia member Congress might have the power to decide what kind of weapon I get to bear like with other well-regulated militias

of course people not in the regular militia but who will be called upon if needed also have the right to have weapons, "the people" includes everyone, not just militia members

[Berzerker]

One, there's no such thing as collective rights. Two, it says, "shall not be infringed".

wouldn't the right of the people be collective?

[korn469]

I'm late to the conversation but...

I think currently the news media is influencing many people to wish away their one of their constitutional rights and that is scary. Also what benefit does Disney, Comcast and all of the other large organizations that owns a media outlet get out of disarming the populace. I’m bothered because besides Bill Maher in the past on Real Time, very few gun control advocates have called for a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. Everyone just seems to want either Congress with a simple law, or the President through an executive order, or the Supreme Court through a ruling on a case to put a de facto end the rights of people to own firearms. They are fine leaving the Second Amendment intact as long as the protections it offered disappear.

Most of the people calling for even more gun control laws are specifically proposing those laws to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This to me is a violation of the principle of the rule of law. We have a constitutional process to amend the Constitution. If we as a nation use it and remove the Second Amendment from the Constitution, I would disagree with that action, but I would accept it. As long as the nation used the amendment process as established by our Constitution to change a constitutionally guaranteed right the nation came to regard as superfluous, then to me that is the rule of law in action. However, amending the Constitution, especially to void the Second Amendment will be extremely difficult, which is probably the vast majority of people who want to restrict firearms do not want to pursue an amendment. They want something easy. If we don’t use the amendment process, but still in practice ban or so greatly restrict gun ownership that the Second Amendment is rendered useless then we are no longer a nation ruled by laws and any constitutionally guaranteed right would be in danger.

Currently we probably have the technological prowess to create a surveillance and security state that Big Brother from 1984 would envy. We could use technology in such a way to greatly increase its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool. We could remove the legal burdens on law enforcement so it becomes amazing efficient. We do not prioritize security because our founders valued freedom and liberty over the efficacy of the security apparatus. I feel like if we distort the freedoms offered by the Second Amendment then the rest of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution are also at risk.

Even if there was a magic wand somebody could wave to remove all of the United States’ 300 million or so guns overnight, there would still be murder, terrorism, assault, arson and many other crimes. The people sold a perfect society would be sorely disappointed. Then there would be calls to go after those other rights standing between the people and their security.

Imagine a society where all constitutional rights were subject to the needs of the state. The government could bend that pesky Fourth Amendment and require every person to submit a DNA and biometrics sample. The government could ban all computers and cell phones that don’t verify identity on the network with those registered biometrics. We could ban all VPNs and all encryption, except where it serves as a benefit to the state, such as to facilitate commerce.

We could make a few changes so that warrants and habeas corpus are things of the past. The police could use indefinite detention as determined by local policing needs. Just imagine how many unauthorized weapons, illegal drugs, illegally trafficked people, banned exotic animals, records of tax evasion, child pornography, and evidence of crimes police could find if they had the ability to cordon off and systematically do top to bottom searches of all houses in a neighborhood and anything they find could be used as evidence and then based on simple probability people could be detained till they were no longer a threat to security or safety.

We could use the biometric data to link to facial recognition cameras and automated license plate readers on literally every street corner as well as drones overhead. Every cell tower could have a stingray system on it. All of these sensors would linked together and tie into a deep learning national data base that could cross reference people with mac addresses on phones, computer log ins, cameras, license plates, purchase data, RFID scans at buildings, etc. to give the government the approximate whereabouts of the entire nation at any given time. Even better, algorithms could probably successfully predict where people should be going and give law enforcement the opportunity to detain people if they varied from their routines in a suspicious manner.

We could monitor not just metadata but the contents of every email, message, call and web traffic and cross reference that with purchases and movements. Using prediction models we could determine probable members of terrorist and criminal cells and take action before they are able to threaten society. Every religious service could be under electronic surveillance to detect people preaching extremism.

We could make society very safe. The only problem would be it wouldn’t be a free society.

I guess that is the sad thing. A free society is not inherently safe and the world is a depressing place full of war, famine, disaster and tragedy. While life has certainly improved since the ancient Greeks, much of life is still more like a tragic play than a comedy. We may live in the safest most prosperous time in humanity’s history but life isn’t perfect and people still kill and assault each other with heart wrenching frequency. Each murder usually doesn’t ONLY end one life, it ends a life, creates a cycle of revenge and destroys friends, family and acquaintances of the murdered person as well as crushes people around the murderer when either revenge or justice comes for them.

If you do think guns are horrible, then I encourage you to band together with like-minded individuals and work to pass a constitutional amendment to ban guns. Currently I would oppose those proposals, but there are some things I could agree with. My mind isn’t set in stone and I’m sure there are many people who support the Second Amendment who have similar thoughts as I do.

When you achieve your goal of repealing the Second Amendment, then prepare yourself for a long hard slog against guns, but maybe one day you will see the goal of a society rid of private gun ownership, (because as far as I know, nobody has called for disarming the police or military). Anything less than that and your efforts are probably just enabling some form of totalitarianism.

You must prepare yourself for another generation of gun crimes, because if after the repeal of the Second Amendment, the police are able to effectively block the illegal manufacture or unlawful importation of firearms, and are able to confiscate on average 1 million guns per month, then after 20 years, there would STILL be 60-70 million guns in circulation, or more than enough to still fuel all of America’s murders and terrorists attacks at 2016 rates for many years.

[Lorizael]

Imagine a society where all constitutional rights were subject to the needs of the state.

I'm not sure why you think this requires imagination.

[Proteus_MST]

...

If you do think guns are horrible, then I encourage you to band together with like-minded individuals and work to pass a constitutional amendment to ban guns. Currently I would oppose those proposals, but there are some things I could agree with. My mind isn’t set in stone and I’m sure there are many people who support the Second Amendment who have similar thoughts as I do.

When you achieve your goal of repealing the Second Amendment, then prepare yourself for a long hard slog against guns, but maybe one day you will see the goal of a society rid of private gun ownership, (because as far as I know, nobody has called for disarming the police or military). Anything less than that and your efforts are probably just enabling some form of totalitarianism.

You must prepare yourself for another generation of gun crimes, because if after the repeal of the Second Amendment, the police are able to effectively block the illegal manufacture or unlawful importation of firearms, and are able to confiscate on average 1 million guns per month, then after 20 years, there would STILL be 60-70 million guns in circulation, or more than enough to still fuel all of America’s murders and terrorists attacks at 2016 rates for many years.

True, that's the big problem.
The american system with free gun ownership for all (including the mentally insane) has been brokjen for so a long time,
that it is hard to reset it into a system, where gun ownership is regulated (and would take a long time)

[korn469]

True, that's the big problem.
The american system with free gun ownership for all (including the mentally insane) has been brokjen for so a long time,
that it is hard to reset it into a system, where gun ownership is regulated (and would take a long time)

I think that the USA would be better off focusing on vastly improving our mental health care system than trying to enforce a gun ban. Honestly I think an EFFECTIVE (which in the US there is no guarantee of that) single payer health system would probably lower gun deaths more than banning high capacity magazines and "scary" looking black rifles.

[Lorizael]

I think that the USA would be better off focusing on vastly improving our mental health care system than trying to enforce a gun ban. Honestly I think an EFFECTIVE (which in the US there is no guarantee of that) single payer health system would probably lower gun deaths more than banning high capacity magazines and "scary" looking black rifles.

If good mental health care eliminated or greatly reduced the number of gun deaths by suicide, you'd be right. The reduction in deaths from mass shootings would be a minor happy side effect.

[Proteus_MST]

I think that the USA would be better off focusing on vastly improving our mental health care system than trying to enforce a gun ban. Honestly I think an EFFECTIVE (which in the US there is no guarantee of that) single payer health system would probably lower gun deaths more than banning high capacity magazines and "scary" looking black rifles.

Hm ... it wouldn't have prevented Orlando ... it also wouldn't have prevented Columbine.
While there are rampages done by mentally instable people (like in case of Virginia and Sandy Hook), many more mass shootings seem to be done by people with no prior history of menbtal problems

[C0ckney]

[[citation needed]]

My experience has been precisely the opposite.

i doubt that you were equally qualified. or if you were, the personal interview doubtless swang it in favour of the other applicant.

[korn469]

Hm ... it wouldn't have prevented Orlando ... it also wouldn't have prevented Columbine.
While there are rampages done by mentally instable people (like in case of Virginia and Sandy Hook), many more mass shootings seem to be done by people with no prior history of menbtal problems

It wouldn't have prevented San Bernardino either, but more effective mental health care would have had a shot or preventing the Virginia Tech mass shooting, possibly Sandy Hook, and maybe the guy in Virginia who shot the reporters on live TV last fall.

Though besides a total ban on all personal firearms backed up with a vigorous mandatory buyback/forced confiscation program what "common sense" gun legislation would have stopped Orlando, San Bernardino, Roanoke, Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Even if there was a magic wand somebody could wave to remove all of the United States’ 300 million or so guns overnight, there would still be murder, terrorism, assault, arson and many other crimes. The people sold a perfect society would be sorely disappointed.

Those people do not actually exist.

Seriously. Find me one person, anywhere on the planet, who thinks that if guns are banned all crime will stop and society will become perfect. If you succeed (and I doubt that you will) bring them here and we can laugh at the simpleton together.

Crime will still exist, but hey! I think the sane brigade just want to reduce US homicide figures down from their current 3rd World levels. Maybe an average of no more than one mass shooting a week. That would be nice.

[C0ckney]

korn, your post appears to be a rehash of a rather popular argument among those who support gun ownership, namely that the right to own a gun protects all the other rights. in my view, this argument falls down on two main points:

1) there are plenty of countries with tight gun laws that are just as free, if not freer, than the US;
2) mass gun ownership has done precisely nothing to prevent mass incarceration, the drug war, mass surveillance, and similar affronts to freedom and decency.