New Zealand to Ban all Military Style Semi Automatic Weapons Immediately

I meant that more in a philosophical sense than in a legal one, obviously. here's a source:

 

So, basically, no legal argument for the "well-armed militia" but rather a "philosophical" argument?

 

I was referring to the idea of an "open concept"; once again you appear to delight in seizing upon an extremely narrow point to make a generalization about what you assume to be an entire argument

 

if you are interested in returning to the original point about the "security of a free state" section of the second amendment, I'm happy to do so.

Again, my argument is that the 2nd amendment is not conditioned upon the idea of military training or military preparedness per se (even though both might be relevant for obvious reasons to the bearing of arms).

Again, the American "right" is modeled upon the English "right" codified in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Understanding why the English decided to enshrine a right to bear arms in their constitution is crucial for understanding why the former American colonialists similarly enshrined that individual right to bear arms in the U.S. constitution.

Joyce Malcolm's book on the right to bear arms is particularly good on the English antecedents to the U.S. law.

And another piece of evidence is the often-recognized presence of actual "self-defense" language in many of the state constitutions that were passed at basically the same time as the U.S. Constitution.

 

Oh, I completely understand why you resorted to a philosophical "open concept"...

 

There are 250 million plus guns in this country. It's just not possible to stop gun crimes here. I think this is an issue Democrats shouldn't fight for.

 

I agree. All three year olds should be armed, but not 2 year olds, because we call it the “terrible twos” for a reason.

 

Then you are disagreeing with the rewording of the amendment by the grammar expert which you linked to earlier. In his clarification of it’s meaning, the right to bear arms follows from the necessity of a well regulated militia. If that wasn’t the primary motivation for it, why was “militia” mentioned at all?

If you want to argue that the real reasons, that are actually relevant today, derive from a 17th legal code in England, can you recap what those legal codes said about weapons capable of killing scores of unarmed people in mere minutes?

 

not any more than I can comment on what 17th century advocates of freedom of the "press" would have to say about instantaneous communication of "fake news" in the Age of Twitter

 

This is all a bit of a giant derail though, isn't it? New Zealand doesn't have a second amendment. I do think the US-New Zealand/Australian comparison is interesting in this way. They also have a sort of Wild West heritage, descendants from the English system, a gun culture, and fairly broad gun ownership. The big difference is that as Americans we've wrapped up the idea of having guns with our civil rights and even our human rights, and with the preservation of democracy itself. Kiwis and Aussies apparently don't have to put the gun up on that pedestal. When we talk about the American gun debate, there are lots of facets that are examined and re-examined and re-re-examined, but many are shared by other heirs of English colonialism. But this is the unique driver -- we have the misfortune of having put guns in our Bill of Rights.

 

Nope. Guns are good. They always take the guns before totalitarian systems go full blown because they don't want an armed populace. That protection is still a great card for the public to have. You can stick your head in the sand on that all you want. Look at all the socialist/communist movements and you'll see they always take the guns. The way the left is going these days, and how they hunger for gun removals and the sort, well, yeah I think we'll be keepin' that second amendment ol' chap. It's just fine where it is.

 

Militia have a role in warfare whether you want to admit it or not.

 

Oh fer sure... I saw these documentaries...

 

Why those who are concerned about gun rights and things like "the Constitutional order" are concerned about Democrats' praise of the New Zealand action to ban certain firearms:

Democrats celebrating New Zealand gun ban expose the Left's authoritarian impulses
by Philip Klein
| March 21, 2019 02:01 PM

New Zealand's decision to swiftly ban guns in the wake of Christchurch shooting has been drawing praise among Democrats — in the process revealing the Left's chilling authoritarian impulses.

On Thursday, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the nation would immediately ban the sale of a broadly-defined class of semiautomatic weapons and then offer a brief "amnesty" for those who legally purchased their guns to hand them over to police at a price determined by the government.

On the surface, this has no bearing on the United States, where luckily our gun rights are enshrined in the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court. But it has been absolutely chilling to witness how many American liberals and prominent Democrats cheered the actions of the government of New Zealand. Even as liberals often insist that nobody is talking about taking away guns, many applauded the decision of a government to quickly confiscate weapons from law-abiding citizens without any debate or legal arguments.

Leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, who actually has a reputation as one of the Democrats less hostile to gun ownership, tweeted, "This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like. We must follow New Zealand's lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States."



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez celebrated by tweeting, "This is what leadership looks like."




That is an absolutely frightening mindset. As president, Barack Obama argued in favor of gun control in the wake of various mass shootings. He wasn't any less of a leader than Ardern; he was just stymied because there wasn't enough support in Congress, and the Constitution places limits on what is possible in the U.S. Because we have a system of checks and balances, it's really difficult to do things quickly in the American system of government. And that's a good thing.

We just went through a debate in the U.S. in which Democrats slammed President Trump for taking the step of declaring a national emergency after Congress blocked funding for his border wall. “Donald Trump may not like it, but we are not an authoritarian country," Sanders said. "We have a constitution and separation of powers. There is no ‘national emergency,’ and Trump cannot build his wall without congressional approval."

I strongly criticized Trump's declaration and believe Congress should act to rein in the Emergency Powers Act. Yet it's also worth noting that Trump's action was rebuked by Congress and will have to survive many legal challenges, which will at least delay it significantly, if not ultimately prevent his ability to build a wall. If Trump had the ability to act in a manner equivalent to what just went on in New Zealand, they'd already be constructing the wall.
​

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...n-ban-expose-the-lefts-authoritarian-impulses

 

My point is even with hand gun you can kill a lot of people and with 250 million+ guns you are going to find some. Instead of wasting political capital on gun control why not spend it on healthcare.

 

I like this (NZ) move just as much as I like Trump declaring a national emergency to build a wall. Be careful of what you wish for.

 

My kids are 9 and 13. I'll let you know when the "terrible 2's" come to an end.