New Zealand to Ban all Military Style Semi Automatic Weapons Immediately

That sounds like an argument for more EC, not less.

You're ascribing acknowledgements not in evidence. The second amendment says the rationale for the right to bear arms is the security of a free state. It doesn't say anything about any human right to self-defense.

 

Where on that range of lethality the restriction should be set is to be determined by the will of the people — in a democratic fashion. My point is simply that you can’t argue that a ban on a particular category of weapon based on its lethality is a violation of a constitutional right.

 

read your Heller decision and read up on the English background of the right to bear arms, including Blackstone's Commentaries.

 

agree in part, dissent in part. Agree with your first statement. My problem with the second sentence is that the ban in question (in NZ) has simply been imposed from above with no democratic or constitutional process. While that may be perfectly acceptable in New Zealand, it is hardly a model for political action in the U.S.

And again, there is no more inherent "lethality" in an AR-platform rifle than other forms of rifles or pistols. We've been through "scary gun" bans before, and they have little to no effect on the violence the scary gun banners are trying to prevent.

 

if we go by the definition of the 2nd amendment the Government has already banned weapons that could be used to fight tyranny.

We are boned and the ability to own pea shooters isn't going to change anything. We can't even buy our own AP ammo. Whatever revolution we try would be stamped out in about a week.

What difference does it make?

 

No so much as a please or a question mark?

 

the difference is that this was not an imperative to reply. it is a rhetorical suggestion as to where you might find the relevant information

 

Thanks for the recommendation. My background on history is already robust. And, your suggestions are not relevant to my point.

 

if you say so

 

I am arguing to update the EC to reflect modern demographics. If that involves changing the system entirely, then I’d be open to that.

 

if your point is about the "security of a free state" section of the 2nd Amendment, you might take a look (please?? with a cherry on top?) at some of the grammatical examinations of the language of the amendment. This paraphrase well illustrates why the grammar matters:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

for example available at:

http://www.patbratton.com/Grammatical_and_Usage_Analysis_of_the_2nd__Amendment.html

 

My understanding that the South being populated by a huge number of slaves had a lot to do with it as well.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

 

Actually, my point was about the right to self-defense, which isn't in there. I already thought about Heller, so you can save yourself the trouble of referring me.

 

Do you believe a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of Americans in modern times?

 

not exactly sure how to answer this question: if you mean literally "militia" which no longer exists, versus a well-regulated "military", which does exist, that implies two possible responses are called for. I will simply assume you mean the latter. Yes, the military is necessary for the security of Americans.

 

I meant militia, not military. From your link:

I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.

He transformed the sentence the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
​

Since you acknowledge that "militia" no longer exists, and since according to your link the 2nd amendment is explicitly contingent on the necessity of such a militia, can you explain why this amendment is still necessary today, and why we shouldn't just overturn it with another amendment?

 

I will do you one better: from Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law on the question of what constitutes a "militia" (which historically referred to gun-owning citizens organized in such a way as to present an alternative to a "standing army"):

Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "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 amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.
​

The key section obviously is "The Right is General," and as Cooley suggests, what constituted a "militia" in the 18th century could very well apply today to any organized group of individuals who gather for the purposes described in the last several lines: "for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

 

What exactly is this modern conception of "militia" you are referencing here? A gathering of well-trained, armed individuals, not employed by the state? For what purpose is this gathering, again? And why should I consider this gathering of armed individuals necessary for the security of the state, as opposed to being a threat to that security?

Again, the amendment presupposes that such a militia is necessary for our security. If that's not actually the case, the rationale for the amendment is lost and, IMO, it should be overturned.

 

I'm just saying the concept of "militia" is not fixed in any kind of eternal sense. Looking at commentaries on the law over time, one can see that "militia" is what might be termed an "open concept." Cooley provides one example of how such a term might be understood in a later time period when the original sense of the term is either unavailable or lost.

 

Funny how "open concepts" exist when trying to defend the letter of the Constitution...