Bill Maher Throws Cold Water On Gun Control. It's Not Going To Change Anything

[Zimobog]

"I ask sir, what is the militia?* It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials.* To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."*
George Mason* (1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washingtion

[Zimobog]

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
Albert Gallatin (1761-1849)* Congressman, Treasury Secretary, House Majority Leader, quote from Oct 7, 1789

[Sato]

I really liked the bit about how school shootings mostly affect "rich white people" while a lot of deaths by firearms for minorities/poor people are unnoticed. Really made me think and changed my perspective a bit, but taken with a large grain of salt.

[Zimobog]

Ok just to be responsible that George Washington quote is disputed, but I didn't know that when I posted it. Just found that when I was looking form documentation.

There isn't really any reason to fake quotes from the FF. There is plenty of actual evidence to support their intentions.

[Joe234]

That would have been a valid claim to make a few years ago...

However, since McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, the Supreme Court gave their interpretation, and the holding is as follows:



(( I should note that this didn't clarify the second amendment once and for all... But, it made things a little less murky; in favor of individual right ))

Justice Scalia: ‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...types-of-guns/

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday left open the possibility that some types of guns could be regulated by the government, such as assault weapons capable of holding 100 rounds of ammunition.


“What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases, what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,” Scalia said on “Fox News Sunday,” referring to the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that protected the right to possess firearms.


“Some [limitations] undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time,” he continued. “There was a tort called a “frighting” which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes there are some limitations that can be imposed, what they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”


The 76-year-old justice declined to speculate on what that could mean specifically for certain high-powered weapons.


“We’ll see,” he said. “Obviously the amend does not apply to arms that cannot be carried — it’s to “keep and bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to — it’ll have to be decided.”
As a constitutional originalist, Scalia said those determinations will have to be made “very carefully” looking within the context of 18th-century history.


“My starting point and probably my ending point will probably be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne.”

[Crow]

Justice Scalia: ‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns

Stubby and I have already arrived to that conclusion.

[Zimobog]

“We’ll see,” he said. “Obviously the amend does not apply to arms that cannot be carried — it’s to “keep and bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to — it’ll have to be decided.”
As a constitutional originalist, Scalia said those determinations will have to be made “very carefully” looking within the context of 18th-century history

I'm betting the "18th-century context" is that the 2nd allows for the private ownership and carrying of military grade hardware.

The arms market disallows the ownership of rocket launchers even where the 2nd might not. Have you seen how much one costs? That keeps them out of more hands than a law would.

[stubby2]

I'm betting the "18th-century context" is that the 2nd allows for the private ownership and carrying of military grade hardware.

The arms market disallows the ownership of rocket launchers even where the 2nd might not. Have you seen how much one costs? That keeps them out of more hands than a law would.

That is an extreme case. What about grenades and grenade launchers? They are probably not all that expensive, but do we really want people owning them. Or mortar launchers? It is very doubtful they will become legal for private citizens to own.

The idea of military hardware has changed radically since the 18-the century. A single individual can now have many times the destructive power then was possible a few hundred years ago. We have come a long way from single shot muskets. It is not unreasonable for the courts to ask the question as if there should be some limits as to what an individual can own.

[Zimobog]

Hand grenades have a history dating back to the 10th century. By the time the 18th rolled around they were hundreds of years old. So if you use the criteria of "the founders only meant us to have weapons available in their time" then hand grenades would be allowed. As would mortars and launchers of said items.

The 2nd was hatched to preserve the ability of the Citizen and state to defend the itself, even from it's own federal government if needed. I think, based on the founder's own words and intentions as expressed by them on multiple occasions, they would have wanted us to have the best tools in the shed.

Machine guns are actually legal to own in the US, they do require a permit. There are very few people outside the shooting community that know this.

For the record, I dont own anything like that or any type of explosive. Just sayin'.

[Bigblue1]

Isn't it rather easy to make a hand grenade anyways. Molotov cocktail, pipe bomb, sparkler bomb, or draino bomb for that matter. Adding more laws to the books will make no one safer.... Just more easily prosecuted for no damn reason and then they will outlaw alcohol draino and sparklers. Then somebody will come up with another way to explode something or crossbow sales will go off the charts. Where does it end. And whose hands are you keeping these weapons out of? Certainly not the bad guys......

[SnusoMatic]

Hand grenades have a history dating back to the 10th century. By the time the 18th rolled around they were hundreds of years old. So if you use the criteria of "the founders only meant us to have weapons available in their time" then hand grenades would be allowed. As would mortars and launchers of said items.

The 2nd was hatched to preserve the ability of the Citizen and state to defend the itself, even from it's own federal government if needed. I think, based on the founder's own words and intentions as expressed by them on multiple occasions, they would have wanted us to have the best tools in the shed.

Machine guns are actually legal to own in the US, they do require a permit. There are very few people outside the shooting community that know this.

For the record, I dont own anything like that or any type of explosive. Just sayin'.

dont forget volley guns and rockets. i really want a rocket.

[Mordred]

I never understood why people misunderstand the second ammendment. Here's the logic behind it: The founding fathers believed that there would be times when we need a militia, for whatever reason, external or internal threats. To ensure that, when such a time comes, we actually do, we need the people to be armed, because pitchforks, even back then, didn't cut it. Thus, the state shall not impose on the people restrictions on owning firearms.