Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

[Write4U]

Utterly and bizarrely false. The exact opposite is the entire focus of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The commas in the Amendment makes it a conditional document

Amendment II
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.

Place a period between "free state" and "the right of the people", and you will have two seperate declarations. The comma makes the term "well-regulated" a condtion of the amendment.

 

[iceaura]

The commas in the Amendment makes it a conditional document

They don't. The preliminary phrase is an "ablative absolute", in grammatical terms - one of these:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ablative_absolute
https://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/whprax/w24-aa.html
Keep in mind that the authors of the Constitution were well educated men of their time.
Not a condition, but instead a context.

Place a period between "free state" and "the right of the people", and you will have two seperate declarations

You won't. Try it. That's a participle - "being" - not a verb. It's a phrase.
But you will have one declaration: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And that is the core meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It's not really subject to much interpretation - it can be misread only by the willfully obtuse.

If you recast the ablative phrase with a proper verb, you might choose "A well-ordered militia is necessary to the security of a free State". That's not quite the same, especially in its implications, but it's close. So?

The comma makes the term "well-regulated" a condtion of the amendment.

It makes the entire phrase a context or circumstance of the amendment, of the granting of the right - an explanation, if you will. And that was clever - the authors were assuming literate readers, after all.

The purpose of the ablative was to further guard against spurious attempts by a conniving authority to nitpick technicalities, and disarm the free man between 18 and 45 on some ground such as "public safety" while technically granting the right in some meaningless sense. The problem is the meaning of "arms" - by itself it could be willfully misinterpreted as including only recreational or light use weapons, only dueling pistols and small caliber shotguns for garden varmints or the like. Mind you that kind of bureaucratic nullification was common, and there were movements in British government to restrict the colonists to weapons that posed no risk to British tax collectors, mercenaries, sheriffs, etc. - or Indians: the colonists were pioneering westward and shooting Indians, screwing up British trade and foreign policy while escaping the taxable boundaries of the colonies.

So to prevent that, the clever author threw in the context: militia. The weapons the free man was granted the inalienable right to keep and bear were such as he could practice with and bring if his militia were called up, at need, without disgrace - well regulated. Not dueling pistols and target shooting toys and fowling pieces then, but rifles capable of killing in combat, were the citizen's right to keep and bear.

 

[sculptor]

Article 3 section 1 of the constitution of the united states begins:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court...

If we are to continue to be a nation of laws derived from our constitution, then the law of the land is ultimately defined by the supreme court.

If you would know the law, then reading the supreme court's decisions and commentary would be a good place to start.

You might read Caetano, McDonald, and Heller for the supreme court's current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

............................................
If the intent includes the militia being able to show up with military style weapons if called up, then certain bans and taxes will most likely be addressed in the near future.
......................
see the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
If the court deems that act as unconstitutional, many who bought pre-1986 automatic weapons as an investment will most likely see their investment lose 90% to 99% of it's value within days.

 

[iceaura]

If the intent includes the militia being able to show up with military style weapons if called up,

It does not. Militia style weapons, adequate for a well-regulated militia.

If you would know the law, then reading the supreme court's decisions and commentary would be a good place to start.

Problem is the Court's been trashed. Read the Citizen's United ruling - the current Court is operating a few fries short of a happy meal. We have no established procedure for rehabilitating a trashed judiciary - elections have consequences.

 

[sculptor]

Scalia
Heller
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. ... "

Which does not mean that the court will consider or not consider the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986

 

[iceaura]

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. ... "

"It may be objected" on grounds that specifically dismiss the specified context of "militia" - as intentionally distinct, then and now, from "military" - would make no sense as an objection. The entire Amendment rests on the distinction between civilians and soldiers, the people and the army, the militia and the military, for its force and meaning.

 

[sculptor]

Perhaps, Scalia had it in mind to revisit the topic later?
Remember that at time the founders did not want a standing land army.

If the court does opine as to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
How do you think the current court will rule?

 

[CptBork]

So to prevent that, the clever author threw in the context: militia. The weapons the free man was granted the inalienable right to keep and bear were such as he could practice with and bring if his militia were called up, at need, without disgrace - well regulated. Not dueling pistols and target shooting toys and fowling pieces then, but rifles capable of killing in combat, were the citizen's right to keep and bear.

Does the right to keep arms have to include the right to keep them underneath your pillow? If there's a local repository where private guns have to be left when they're not in use for legitimate purposes, then they're available for "militia" use as needed, and they remain in the owner's possession, but not generally available for use when he or she gets into an argument over a fender bender.

 

[Write4U]

Does the right to keep arms have to include the right to keep them underneath your pillow? If there's a local repository where private guns have to be left when they're not in use for legitimate purposes, then they're available for "militia" use as needed, and they remain in the owner's possession, but not generally available for use when he or she gets into an argument over a fender bender.

In Idaho, many people have pick-up trucks with gunracks in the cabin.
However any rifles must be unloaded. If you get stopped with a loaded rifle in your car, the rifle gets confiscated and you are subject to a fine.

 

[CptBork]

In Idaho, many people have pick-up trucks with gunracks in the cabin.
However any rifles must be unloaded. If you get stopped with a loaded rifle in your car, the rifle gets confiscated and you are subject to a fine.

Sounds like a start, but does nothing to stop concealed weapons from being transported, and guns can be loaded on demand. A central repository would be a great way to make it extremely difficult to even think of having rifles with you when you're going about daily business that doesn't require you to have one.

 

[iceaura]

Does the right to keep arms have to include the right to keep them underneath your pillow? If there's a local repository where private guns have to be left when they're not in use for legitimate purposes, then they're available for "militia" use as needed, and they remain in the owner's possession, but not generally available for use when he or she gets into an argument over a fender bender.

They aren't available for abuse in fender benders when they're home under a pillow. From a public safety pov, that's a good place for them.
They aren't available for militia use (includes home defense, btw, by any militia member, as well as the practice and maintenance and familiarity crucial to the proper regulation of militia employment) when they are locked up in a public repository miles away, either.
And since "legitimate purposes" include target practice, defense of one's garden from varmints, and so forth, you're going to have trouble sequestering guns away from their owners via that kind of argument regardless of militia employment.

Topping it off, you will do a great deal of damage to your preferred political candidates if you stick them with that kind of argument and agenda. That is unfortunately an observation of fact - those kinds of approaches to gun control have ruined more political campaigns than abortion has in my State.

 

[Vociferous]

You shouldn't be allowed to own a gun if your priority is to have one before you've even considered home alarms.

Depends on police response times. An alarm is only a deterrent, not actual protection. And if the police can't response before you need actual protection, you're screwed unless you can defend yourself. But if you don't understand simple facts of life, you probably shouldn't own a gun either.

Assume every gun is loaded, keep the finger off the trigger until intending to shoot... Follow these basic tips and you'll be good to go just like Rambo, lock and load!

Hahaha! Yes, we know ignorant people all equate gun ownership with Rambo. Maybe you shouldn't consider action movies educational.

Yeah, and a gun.

Depends on police response times. If the police can't response before you need actual protection, you're screwed unless you can defend yourself.

But you have the gun ready to use without a moment's notice. Not safe.

You're just paranoid about an inanimate object. It can't just jump up a hurt you on its own.
Or that's an estimation of your own ability to handle a gun. I can understand why you'd think everyone is as unsafe as you.

Organized = Well Regulated.
Thus a Well Regulated Militia (by any organizational means) is the term used in the Constitution.
It has nothing to do with the Right to bear arms, but more with the Privilige to bear arms.

In complete contradiction to the actual words in the 2nd amendment.

The commas in the Amendment makes it a conditional document Place a period between "free state" and "the right of the people", and you will have two seperate declarations. The comma makes the term "well-regulated" a condtion of the amendment.

Placing a period there only leaves one complete declarative sentence. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is only a justification for the declaration, not a limitation to it. It's not even a complete sentence, much less a declaration. Please educate yourself on basic grammar, because that shortfall undermines every other argument you make on the subject.

It does not. Militia style weapons, adequate for a well-regulated militia.

When written, militia was intended to be as well-armed as any standing military.

"It may be objected" on grounds that specifically dismiss the specified context of "militia" - as intentionally distinct, then and now, from "military" - would make no sense as an objection. The entire Amendment rests on the distinction between civilians and soldiers, the people and the army, the militia and the military, for its force and meaning.

It does not make such a distinction between the weapons used by each.

Does the right to keep arms have to include the right to keep them underneath your pillow? If there's a local repository where private guns have to be left when they're not in use for legitimate purposes, then they're available for "militia" use as needed, and they remain in the owner's possession, but not generally available for use when he or she gets into an argument over a fender bender.

No, that is not in the owner's possession, i.e. the right to bear arms.
This also ignores the fact that simple grammar proves the militia only a justification, not a limitation on the right.

 

[pjdude1219]

Does the right to keep arms have to include the right to keep them underneath your pillow? If there's a local repository where private guns have to be left when they're not in use for legitimate purposes, then they're available for "militia" use as needed, and they remain in the owner's possession, but not generally available for use when he or she gets into an argument over a fender bender.

thats actually how gun control worked in the wild west. you couldn't just wander around armed for no reason. outsiders had to leave their guns at the police station and residents had to keep their guns secured at home unless they left to go say hunting or traveling. I may be wrong but the shoot out at the ok corral may have happened in part because of the cowboys refusing to disarm. it should also be noted that these laws were fairly consistently upheld in court.

 

[CptBork]

No, that is not in the owner's possession, i.e. the right to bear arms.
This also ignores the fact that simple grammar proves the militia only a justification, not a limitation on the right.

But you would still have the right to bear arms any time you want, as long as it's for a legitimate purpose in a legitimate zone (i.e. hunting, target practice), and not for taking home and potentially shooting your annoying neighbor if the mood strikes. Therefore your right to bear arms wouldn't be infringed, only your privilege to bear them in certain places where you and your gun could potentially pose a threat.

 

[Vociferous]

But you would still have the right to bear arms any time you want, as long as it's for a legitimate purpose in a legitimate zone (i.e. hunting, target practice), and not for taking home and potentially shooting your annoying neighbor if the mood strikes. Therefore your right to bear arms wouldn't be infringed, only your privilege to bear them in certain places where you and your gun could potentially pose a threat.

Why, do you fear you'd shoot your annoying neighbor?
Limiting "legitimate purpose" beyond what is already criminal is infringement.

 

[iceaura]

When written, militia was intended to be as well-armed as any standing military.

That was circumstance, accepted rather than intended. And that circumstance has changed. That was before modern technological innovations. The militia was differently armed even then, but that difference has become larger and qualitatively significant over time - putting modern military weapons in militia hands now would undermine the security of the free State, not enhance it, and such gear can be sequestered away from civilian hands without infringing on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
Win/win.

It does not make such a distinction between the weapons used by each.

Neither does it forbid such a distinction. It clearly makes such a distinction possible and allowed.

But you would still have the right to bear arms any time you want, as long as it's for a legitimate purpose in a legitimate zone (i.e. hunting, target practice), and not for taking home and potentially shooting your annoying neighbor if the mood strikes

Taking them home is part of employing them for their legitimate purposes, which are not subject to government accountability in the first place. Having them locked up in a distant repository of deniable accessibility infringes on the right to keep and the right to bear both.

 

[Write4U]

question: What are the odds of having to defend your home and family against armed intruders?
As far as I know most break-ins are done when there is nobody home.....

 

[pjdude1219]

Taking them home is part of employing them for their legitimate purposes, which are not subject to government accountability in the first place. Having them locked up in a distant repository of deniable accessibility infringes on the right to keep and the right to bear both.

than why did the supreme court rule it was constitutional to do so for decades?

ok never got the supreme court because well no thought it was infringing on their rights. but the simple fact remains that what you claim with certainity cannot be done legally was done for decades with no having a problem with it. your argument relies on anachronism

 

[Dr_Toad]

question: What are the odds of having to defend your home and family against armed intruders?
As far as I know most break-ins are done when there is nobody home.....

If no one is home, what are you defending? A toaster?

The point being made is when one is at home. And that should be easy enough for you to understand.

Remember, when you're in trouble right now, the police are only minutes away. If you're lucky.

 

[Write4U]

If no one is home, what are you defending? A toaster?

Certainly not your life.

The point being made is when one is at home. And that should be easy enough for you to understand.
Remember, when you're in trouble right now, the police are only minutes away. If you're lucky.

The question was about the odds of being home and being robbed by armed robbers, who are willing to kill to get your toaster.

I did a little checking and it seems that the odds are less than 1 %.

p.s. I am a gun owner. My argument is not about the right to own a gun, it is about reasonable regulation.