Will this antiquated American madness ever end??

Funky_Chicken said:
The second amendment was put in place (supposedly) to protect the American people from any rogue government, giving the people the right to defend themselves from any such governing body. Sounds good in theory but i guess they never thought about the consequences of loonies getting their hands on high powered weaponry
www.history.com

The Second Amendment - Definition, Text & Rights

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, is one of 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights. It establishes the right to bear arms and figures prominently in the long-running debate over gun control.
www.history.com www.history.com
Click to expand...
Even with a cursory glance at the 2nd amendment it always seemed apparent to me that the arguments that it guarantees a totally untramelled right to carry any and all types of weapons, and that it enshrines the individual right to bear arms, totally separate from the need for a well-regulated militia, were not based on any logical or grammatical reading of that statute.

It wasn't until fairly recently that I came to realise that many much more learned legal scholars that myself, agree with this view.

No less an authority than Warren E Burger, former US Supreme Court Chief Justice (incidentally, a Republican Party member and a conservative judge) described the idea that the clause about a well-regulated militia should be read as separate from the people's right to bear arms, as:

"One of the greatest pieces of fraud ... on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
Click to expand...


And as far as I'm concerned, the USSC Heller decision of 2008 (which was the first to decouple the individual right clause from the militia clause) was deeply flawed, and is actually just the culmination of the fraud referred to by Burger - driven by decades of lobbying and pressure from those "special interest groups" (especially the NRA of course) to change that public mindset on the issue.

For me, the previous Supreme Court decisions (of which there weren't many, as they have usually preferred to stay away from the issue) are highly instructive.

Here's some wording from a couple of them.

United States v. Miller (1939)
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Click to expand...

Lewis v. United States (1980);
The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
Click to expand...

And even the Heller decision, although it partly upheld an individual right to bear arms, only applied to handguns and nothing else. It even made the point specifically, that this ruling did not prevent other restrictions being in place, as follows:

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Click to expand...

So I think many of the arguments being advanced by gun rights activists are, as stated by Burger, a total fraud and are not in fact well supported by the 2nd amendment at all.
 
Last edited:
I think perhaps the only real chance things could change is if the NRA were to lose its grip on Republican politicians.

I actually had quite high hopes that they might have been in serious trouble when NY Attorney General Letitia James brought charges against the NRA in 2020 - and especially when she filed a motion to have the organisation dissolved.

However a judge blocked that motion and although the case is still ongoing it may not be the existential threat to the NRA that I (and perhaps some others) were hoping for. It might succeed in getting Wayne LaPierre removed but I don't know how much further it'll get.

Judge blocks New York's bid to close NRA
 
Last edited:
It's madness, I will never get it. An in-law, I would guess late 40's, a PhD from Detroit, argues for the rights of that amendment it's almost a religion. He whould never own a gun though.

We must have been to the US about 20 times, never once have we ever felt unsafe.
 
As much as I loved the experience I'll never go back there.

I can't take the in-bred stupidity any more.

They slaughter their children and still take pride in the fact that an 18 year old can buy a semi-automatic assault rifle.
They all want guns to 'defend themselves', get them then stand for an hour listeneing to their children being slaughtered by gunfire and stand and do nothing.

They're god-fearing yet accept the slaughter of their children on a regular basis and do nothing about it.

As a nation they are so very lucky that they've been blessed with almost endless natural resources.
This has given them power in the world. Nothing to do with inginuity.

They are turning into the worlds new extremists.
 
Same_as_before said:
it's almost a religion.
Click to expand...

No it IS A RELIGION to them as That’s the point it’s a “god given right” that is how they view it.

We look at it as a legal or even political issue a law that can be changed but to them it’s the fundamental bedrock of their patriotism.

It’s nuts but that is what it is to them.
 
Nero said:
It will never change in America. Too many people like and want guns and are not willing to accept controls on certain weapons.
Click to expand...
Above all they're enshrined in 2 party, black and white politics.
I fear we are headed the same way and it stifles sensible debate as peoples' minds are made up before any debate or thought starts.
 
RedAsABeetroot said:
Above all they're enshrined in 2 party, black and white politics.
I fear we are headed the same way and it stifles sensible debate as peoples' minds are made up before any debate or thought starts.
Click to expand...

This can’t happen as we are not a 2 party system nor do we have the separation of powers as they have in the us.

Their impasse comes from one party ruling the senate whilst the other runs the house etc that can’t happen here.

As It’s impossible as to be the PM (the executive - via cabinet) you must have the majority in parliament mainly via the commons (the legislature).

Plus our judiciary can be replaced by the PM so there isn’t a legal battle either. As we see with SCOTUS and their life term long appointments.

so there could never be the same style of conflict stagnation that we see in the US.

There isn’t anything A new PM could not change under our system Their POWERS are largely limitless. There’s isn’t a law that can’t be amended added or repealed in this country.

that isn’t the case in the US.
 
Last edited:
I am sure I read somewhere last year that the vast majority of the US electorate want much tighter gun control. I haven't looked for the article again yet, but as I recall it was from a reputable source.

The reason their voices are largely ignored is money. It has very little to do with the constitution and a lot to do with money and power.
 
Jedi boro said:
This can’t happen as we are not a 2 party system nor do we have the separation of powers as they have in the us.

Their impasse comes from one party ruling the senate whilst the other runs the house etc that can’t happen here.

As It’s impossible as to be the PM (the executive - via cabinet) you must have the majority in parliament mainly via the commons (the legislature).

Plus our judiciary can be replaced by the PM so there isn’t a legal battle either. As we see with SCOTUS and their life term long appointments.

so there could never be the same style of conflict stagnation that we see in the US.

There isn’t anything A new PM could not change under our system Their POWERS are largely limitless. There’s isn’t a law that can’t be amended added or repealed in this country.

that isn’t the case in the US.
Click to expand...
I wasn't particularly thinking about the political mechanics of change to the law but more about polarisation of the general public's opinions and points of view.
 
RedAsABeetroot said:
I wasn't particularly thinking about the political mechanics of change to the law but more about polarisation of the general public's opinions and points of view.
Click to expand...

I still think our system stops that from happening as for every dorries and mogg there’s thankfully a nandy and a rayner.

I think the recent events have prob done more to dilute this hegemony than anything. I think and hope that we will see this really transpire at the ballot box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top