Gun control and constitutionality

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

freedom

'Kay, freedom to shoot people? That's an odd freedom, to say the least.

Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, yet there are far fewer murders each year, why would that be?

How is that relevant to the Constitution?

Fine, I may not have the best understanding of the Constitution, being from the UK, but my take normally is if a gun is unpopular or has no business in Hunting, it probably shouldn't be completely free to sell, especially after the Dunblane massacre, and I believe that the "Right to bear arms" line was written in a time when it was necessary to own a gun, considering the Revolutionary War, nowadays, it's less so.

"If ____ is unpopular or has no business in _____, it probably shouldn't be completely free to ____, especially after ____."   Fill in the blanks and it as often as not is used to justify some form of tyranny as it is to justify something desirable.  Especially the unpopular bit.  The idea that something should be more worthy of being banned because it is unpopular makes my libertarian skin crawl. The idea that the only legitimate use of firearms is Hunting strikes me as naive.  About the only bit of what you just wrote that I agree with is that the recent experience of the American Revolution did give the framers a higher valuation of the Right to Bear Arms than is currently the case in our reasonably stable democracies.  You don't need the Right to Bear Arms as a part of a collective defense against tyranny when you have a functioning democratic system.  Of course, not everyone agrees our system is functioning, and leaving the government to decide when it is, does sort of leave the fox guarding the henhouse, does it not?

Not particularly, and what else would you use a Gun for? Again, this probably comes from living in the UK, but wouldn't you shoot for that sole reason? Or is "muh guns to defend against criminals" the only reason? Considering that it'd be better to live in a safer neighbourhood or to at least keep your gun away from kids, I see no reason to want to shoot someone.

Again, what does any of that have to do with the US Constitution? You may view strict gun control laws as a desirable outcome, but that is irrelevant to the constitutionality of such laws.

But it is relevant to whether the constitution should allow such laws.  Just so long as one keeps in mind that does and should are not always the same, I see no problem in discussing should.

What the Secret Senator from Canada apparently fails to realize is that not everyone trusts government to be the sole possessor of firearms.  Individuals with guns do cause problems, but not on the same scale as governments.  America's problem with gun violence is mainly because we're a violent society, not because we have guns.

[Potatoe]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

freedom

'Kay, freedom to shoot people? That's an odd freedom, to say the least.

Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, yet there are far fewer murders each year, why would that be?

How is that relevant to the Constitution?

Fine, I may not have the best understanding of the Constitution, being from the UK, but my take normally is if a gun is unpopular or has no business in Hunting, it probably shouldn't be completely free to sell, especially after the Dunblane massacre, and I believe that the "Right to bear arms" line was written in a time when it was necessary to own a gun, considering the Revolutionary War, nowadays, it's less so.

"If ____ is unpopular or has no business in _____, it probably shouldn't be completely free to ____, especially after ____."   Fill in the blanks and it as often as not is used to justify some form of tyranny as it is to justify something desirable.  Especially the unpopular bit.  The idea that something should be more worthy of being banned because it is unpopular makes my libertarian skin crawl. The idea that the only legitimate use of firearms is Hunting strikes me as naive.  About the only bit of what you just wrote that I agree with is that the recent experience of the American Revolution did give the framers a higher valuation of the Right to Bear Arms than is currently the case in our reasonably stable democracies.  You don't need the Right to Bear Arms as a part of a collective defense against tyranny when you have a functioning democratic system.  Of course, not everyone agrees our system is functioning, and leaving the government to decide when it is, does sort of leave the fox guarding the henhouse, does it not?

Not particularly, and what else would you use a Gun for? Again, this probably comes from living in the UK, but wouldn't you shoot for that sole reason? Or is "muh guns to defend against criminals" the only reason? Considering that it'd be better to live in a safer neighbourhood or to at least keep your gun away from kids, I see no reason to want to shoot someone.

Again, what does any of that have to do with the US Constitution? You may view strict gun control laws as a desirable outcome, but that is irrelevant to the constitutionality of such laws.

But it is relevant to whether the constitution should allow such laws.  Just so long as one keeps in mind that does and should are not always the same, I see no problem in discussing should.

What the Secret Senator from Canada apparently fails to realize is that not everyone trusts government to be the sole possessor of firearms.  Individuals with guns do cause problems, but not on the same scale as governments.  America's problem with gun violence is mainly because we're a violent society, not because we have guns.

Except that in Canada, there is a similar violence culture, they have the same violent movies, video games and TV, same thing goes for the UK, and those two countries have around the same number of guns as the US, hell, Canada probably has a big focus on Hunting, and the UK had one as well for a number of years, and the Murder rate was astonishingly low compared to the US. (Maybe it's the bullets?)

And to answer Deus I do think that Gun Control is constitutional, as the Second Amendment was written in a time of Revolution, now, there is literally no chance of the US being invaded by a foreign power, and I think that some guns which aren't useful in any way, or necessary (Like AK47's and the like), probably should be banned, that said, even I think an all out Gun Ban is a bit stupid to do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Except that in Canada, there is a similar violence culture, they have the same violent movies, video games and TV, same thing goes for the UK, and those two countries have around the same number of guns as the US, hell, Canada probably has a big focus on Hunting, and the UK had one as well for a number of years, and the Murder rate was astonishingly low compared to the US. (Maybe it's the bullets?)

And to answer Deus I do think that Gun Control is constitutional, as the Second Amendment was written in a time of Revolution, now, there is literally no chance of the US being invaded by a foreign power, and I think that some guns which aren't useful in any way, or necessary (Like AK47's and the like), probably should be banned, that said, even I think an all out Gun Ban is a bit stupid to do.

The idea that the second amendment was adopted because of concern that a foreign tyrant would invade the US is absolutely absurd.  It was adopted to give the people leverage against domestic tyrants.

I suppose absurd ideas are to be expected from anyone who thinks that Canada and the United States are essentially identical in their gun culture.

[Potatoe]

Except that in Canada, there is a similar violence culture, they have the same violent movies, video games and TV, same thing goes for the UK, and those two countries have around the same number of guns as the US, hell, Canada probably has a big focus on Hunting, and the UK had one as well for a number of years, and the Murder rate was astonishingly low compared to the US. (Maybe it's the bullets?)

And to answer Deus I do think that Gun Control is constitutional, as the Second Amendment was written in a time of Revolution, now, there is literally no chance of the US being invaded by a foreign power, and I think that some guns which aren't useful in any way, or necessary (Like AK47's and the like), probably should be banned, that said, even I think an all out Gun Ban is a bit stupid to do.

The idea that the second amendment was adopted because of concern that a foreign tyrant would invade the US is absolutely absurd.  It was adopted to give the people leverage against domestic tyrants.

I suppose absurd ideas are to be expected from anyone who thinks that Canada and the United States are essentially identical in their gun culture.

But the Second Amendment was written during a time of war, specifically on US soil, and the likelyhood of that happening again are less than minimal, and unless you're a Conspiracy Theorists, there isn't much need to form a Militia and Go to Washington with an AK47.

I didn't mean they had similar gun cultures, I meant that in Canada, they still have just as many guns as the US.

[Deus Naturae]

Except that in Canada, there is a similar violence culture, they have the same violent movies, video games and TV, same thing goes for the UK, and those two countries have around the same number of guns as the US, hell, Canada probably has a big focus on Hunting, and the UK had one as well for a number of years, and the Murder rate was astonishingly low compared to the US. (Maybe it's the bullets?)

And to answer Deus I do think that Gun Control is constitutional, as the Second Amendment was written in a time of Revolution, now, there is literally no chance of the US being invaded by a foreign power, and I think that some guns which aren't useful in any way, or necessary (Like AK47's and the like), probably should be banned, that said, even I think an all out Gun Ban is a bit stupid to do.

The idea that the second amendment was adopted because of concern that a foreign tyrant would invade the US is absolutely absurd.  It was adopted to give the people leverage against domestic tyrants.

I suppose absurd ideas are to be expected from anyone who thinks that Canada and the United States are essentially identical in their gun culture.

But the Second Amendment was written during a time of war, specifically on US soil, and the likelyhood of that happening again are less than minimal, and unless you're a Conspiracy Theorists, there isn't much need to form a Militia and Go to Washington with an AK47.

I didn't mean they had similar gun cultures, I meant that in Canada, they still have just as many guns as the US.

The Bill of Rights was written after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War

[nuclearneo577]

Option 2, something like not allowing most civilians to legally buy 30 5.56 NATO clips for their AR-15 has nothing to do with a militia or the security of a free state. As for ", the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", almost any right should have some limitations, such as not letting people on the terrorist watch list legally buy firearms. Outright banning every gun would go against the whole thing by any interpretation that I can think of off of the top of my head.

[Lincoln Republican]

Option 1.

Gun control is definitely not unconstitutional.  It is perfectly constitutional.

[history nerd]

It would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass a gun ban, however state and local governments would be within their rights to pass a gun ban.

[Person Man]

Though the thing about the 2nd Amendment being used to protect us from Government- how far do you think armed citizens would get against the most powerful military, by far, on the planet? Does this mean that the means for civil war  is legal and/or that you have a right to join, pay for or help kick start a private army?  Does this mean the right to bear arms goes beyond personal firearms (weapons intended to be used and brandished by a single person?)

On the other hand, I do see that the 2nd Amendment being important if the local/state authorities are corrupt or ineffective. This way, maybe the people can provide protection and survive until recourse can be brought.