The war against individual freedoms

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

We in the US already have a police state

- Doc

[_DoubtingThomas]

We in the US already have a police state

- Doc

Okay, maybe not a police state, but very close.

[_Amore]

How many billions of dollars do we spend a year defending ourselves against external terrorism? A threat that kills how many Americans a year?10? maybe a 100?

And yet how many thousands of Americans die each year right in our own country from guns?

God, we are morons.

your post's argument sure makes your point.

The obvious needs to be pointed out sometimes. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. People who are intent on getting a gun find ways despite the many existing gun laws of restrictions. Schools need security.

2 common factors among shooters are prescription mind-altering drug use & fatherlessness. The real problems go ignored while scapegoats of blaming guns is the focus.

[_Morley]

Restricting our guns won't make a us police state. It won't even contribute to the US becoming a police state.

[_Some Schmo]

2 common factors among shooters are prescription mind-altering drug use & fatherlessness.

I bet you watch a lot of Fox News.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Many planned communities don't allow a kid to use a skateboard on the street, but by God, the constitution guarantees his right to keep 12 AR-15s in his closet. The fact the day of the gun is past paces about a hundred other losses of freedom that really have nothing to do with government, but increased population density and disposable income all around, and the loss of the gun for most people is far less significant than the loss of many other freedoms due to changing times rather than politicians realizing their socialist dreams.

Yeah, and I think there is this sacrosanct take on the 2nd Amendment that just isn't based in reality.

People don't understand that politics wasn't any different then than it was now. In fact in a lot of ways it might have been more contentious. We like to pretend that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of friends who all sat in a room and everyone nodded warmly in agreement and friendship as they came up with the ideals they all shared. But the truth is that the writing of the Constitution was super contentious.

Those men “F” ing argued bitterly about every sentence from vastly different view points on what should and shouldn't be allowed. I mean, just look at early US politics: Jefferson said that Adams looked like a hermaphrodite, Adams called George Washington illiterate, Aaron Burr shot Hamilton to death, and that's barely even scratching the surface. You'd better believe they fought over the 2nd Amendment. Some argued against the clause, some argued other points of it, some argued for it completely as an inalienable right.

The 2nd amendment is the product of compromise, of a hundred or more different opinions and intents, and attributing a singular purpose or intent to the 2nd amendment is simply unsupportable. The victorious founding fathers meant it as an inalienable right for a free society. They meant it as a way for settlers in a nation comprised mostly of wilderness to defend themselves against very real threats like bears. They meant it as a way to easily assemble militias to defend from foreign powers. And yes, some of them meant it as a way to stand against a tyrannical government.

They wrote it for all of these purposes in part. And that means that you can't really look at the 2nd Amendment and see a singular intent. It's a nuanced piece of legislation and it was written as a compromise for their time.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Doc -

The 2nd amendment was not about bear defense. After arguing that the intent of the amendment is unknowable because it is the result of compromise between factions who wanted different things from it, you argue that it existed to provide people a means to survive in the wilderness. My first thought is pick a lane of argument. My second thought is no.

The second amendment is based on predecessor law. It was written in a couple drafts by a small number of people who talked about their opinions on it. It's fairly clear the point of the amendment was to allow states to form militias to help obviate the need for a standing army and to allow the people to justifiably resist the government should it become tyrannical. It also allowed states their own fighting force, which was essential in the federalist compromise. Runaway slaves aren't going to round themselves up.

I don't think there is much debate about this. The legal debate had been about whether this is an individual right or whether it was a right secured only in the context of militia participation, with Heller holding it is an individual right in a 5-4 decision.

I would add that holding *both* the federal government had the right to take over state militias and that girearm ownership was not an individual right produces a dubious take on Constitutional intent.

For the gun control debate, none of this pecludes gun restrictions for types of weapons, people, or locations. Heller is explicit about that. Madison, the principle author of the amendment, supported a blanket firearms ban on the university of Virginia campus.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

EA,

I was just giving a few of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment exists. It was added as a practicality for self-defense in a wilderness environment, to raise a militia against foreign aggressors, and as a deterrent to tyranny. It was written for a period of time that couldn't possibly foresee what 2018 America would be or how the amendment itself would be interpreted.

I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with other than pulling your usual shtick of being a contrarian because you want to feel smart.

- Doc

[_Amore]

2 common factors among shooters are prescription mind-altering drug use & fatherlessness.

I bet you watch a lot of Fox News.

I bet you don’t even know what logical fallacies are.

[_Amore]

Restricting our guns won't make a us police state. It won't even contribute to the US becoming a police state.

Who said it would or is? There are already many gun restrictions. What more, specifically, do you (or those blaming guns) want regarding gun laws that are not already in place?