Law Gun Control: A Global Overview

[spamking]

 

[Deorum]

The FPC really never sleeps. It never rests.

 

[djacobox372]

This whole "pistol brace" debate makes gun rights people look bad.

We all know that nobody uses those as a "pistol brace" they are just weirdly shaped rifle stocks. If you want to have an honest debate about the stupidity of SBR regulations do that, but don't try to hide that debate in a BS pistol brace argument as it just makes gun advocates seem dishonest and/or stupid.

This is similar to those who defend "solvent traps" in an attempt to get around suppressor regulations. Just make you seem dishonest. Argue the pros of suppressors on their merits, don't bs about it.

 

[spamking]

This whole "pistol brace" debate makes gun rights people look bad.

I don't see it this way. They were initially developed and used for a specific purpose. Others bought them legally and used them as they pleased.

We all know that nobody uses those as a "pistol brace" they are just weirdly shaped rifle stocks.

You know there is a specific group who use them as originally designed and intended don't you? Others have used them however they wanted as they should.

If you want to have an honest debate about the stupidity of SBR regulations do that, but don't try to hide that debate in a BS pistol brace argument as it just makes gun advocates seem dishonest and/or stupid.

This entire premise is stupid. The ATF whining about people shouldering an AR pistol is ridiculous.

This is similar to those who defend "solvent traps" in an attempt to get around suppressor regulations. Just make you seem dishonest. Argue the pros of suppressors on their merits, don't bs about it.

All of these regulations are ridiculous. Why get butthurt over people who build their own?

 

[My Spot]

I don't see it this way. They were initially developed and used for a specific purpose. Others bought them legally and used them as they pleased.

You know there is a specific group who use them as originally designed and intended don't you? Others have used them however they wanted as they should.


This entire premise is stupid. The ATF whining about people shouldering an AR pistol is ridiculous.

All of these regulations are ridiculous. Why get butthurt over people who build their own?

He's even worse than the gun grabbers because he pretends to be an ally of gun rights.

 

[BFoe]

That contradicts the 2A which states the right to bear arms is to allow for militia.

It's impossible to have a "militia" if you can't organize, maintain, or employ and armed body of men.

Arizona believes it is the Grand Canyon State and its Wild West attitude is that it will do whatever the fuck it wants. AZ ideology puts forth that keeping and bearing arms is fucking stupid and senseless if not for the use of personal defense. The second clause is more geared towards prohibiting corporations from forming their own paramilitary death squads.

I think the point of that phrasing is that random groups of people can’t call themselves a militia, or some business can’t organize a militia—it has to be the state that does so. The 2A dealt with state militias specifically. Even today, those types of militia groups are banned in every state, and states can enact laws against those types of militias. As much as you’ll hear some pro-gun types say “we’re all in the militia,” that isn’t true at all—at least as far as a well-regulated militia is concerned.

 

[spamking]

I think the point of that phrasing is that random groups of people can’t call themselves a militia, or some business can’t organize a militia—it has to be the state that does so. The 2A dealt with state militias specifically. Even today, those types of militia groups are banned in every state, and states can enact laws against those types of militias. As much as you’ll hear some pro-gun types say “we’re all in the militia,” that isn’t true at all—at least as far as a well-regulated militia is concerned.

It is a good thing there are two different types of militias . . . both made up of groups of able-bodied citizens. And even better that "the people" don't need to be in one to justify "bearing arms".

 

[BFoe]

It is a good thing there are two different types of militias . . . both made up of groups of able-bodied citizens. And even better that "the people" don't need to be in one to justify "bearing arms".

Yes, two types.

Organized militia, which is the National Guard.
Unorganized militia: able bodied persons not in national guard or naval militia.

Which type of militia does the 2A refer to? It certainly doesn’t refer to unorganized militias.

And yes, under a proper reading of the 2nd Amendment, you would need to be in a militia to bear arms. “Bearing arms” does not mean carrying a weapon around on your person. It specifically refers to the context of a militia.

There was plenty of evidence of that which SCOTUS sloppily side-stepped in Heller—but today, the textual evidence is absolutely overwhelming that their interpretation of the phrase “to keep and bear arms” was wrong.

 

[spamking]

Stewart is such a putz when it comes to the 2A . . .

 

[spamking]

Yes, two types.

Organized militia, which is the National Guard.
Unorganized militia: able bodied persons not in national guard or naval militia.

Hey . . . look at that . . . something I can agree with.

Which type of militia does the 2A refer to? It certainly doesn’t refer to unorganized militias.

And then you tank it with this crap. The unorganized militia is exactly who the 2A refers to.

Even Google's AI knows this . . .

When referring to the "well regulated Militia" in the 2nd Amendment, it generally refers to the unorganized militia, which means the general population of able-bodied citizens who could be called upon to serve in the military if needed, rather than a specific organized military unit like the National Guard; this is the interpretation favored by most legal scholars.

And yes, under a proper reading of the 2nd Amendment, you would need to be in a militia to bear arms. “Bearing arms” does not mean carrying a weapon around on your person. It specifically refers to the context of a militia.

There was plenty of evidence of that which SCOTUS sloppily side-stepped in Heller—but today, the textual evidence is absolutely overwhelming that their interpretation of the phrase “to keep and bear arms” was wrong.

 

[BFoe]

Hey . . . look at that . . . something I can agree with.

And then you tank it with this crap. The unorganized militia is exactly who the 2A refers to.

Even Google's AI knows this . . .

When referring to the "well regulated Militia" in the 2nd Amendment, it generally refers to the unorganized militia, which means the general population of able-bodied citizens who could be called upon to serve in the military if needed, rather than a specific organized military unit like the National Guard; this is the interpretation favored by most legal scholars.

No worries, I’ll write Google a strongly worded email and clear the whole thing up.

All 50 states have laws banning private militia activity. These types of laws were found to be constitutional by SCOTUS way back in 1886.

“Well-regulated” specifically refers to being well-regulated by the government; it is true that in times of a draft, private citizens could be conscripted into a well-regulated militia. But you right now are not part of any well-regulated militia.

This point of mine really isn’t even debatable anymore.
I touched on this already earlier ITT, but I’ll repeat it again:

In preparation for SCOTUS to hear Heller, the historian Saul Cornell was able to find more than 100 colonial-era examples of the phrase “bear arms,” with 96% of them relating to militia service specifically. SCOTUS still side-stepped them.

But nowadays with rise of a discipline called corpus linguistics and the advancement of technology, we have full-on databases of colonial-era texts. Databases like COFEA (the Corpus of Founding Era American English), and COEME (the Corpus of Early Modern English).

A search of them found 900 colonial-era examples of the phrase “bear arms,” and nearly all 900 related to an organized military/militia context. Only 7 of them were either ambiguous or carried no military context.

Those databases only have the phrase “keep arms” in a relevant context 26 times—and 25 out of 26 times refer to militia or military context (the one that doesn’t, is ambiguous).

There’s really no question that SCOTUS defined these terms incorrectly. I know you don’t want it to be that way, and I’m super sorry, but the interpretation of the 2A in Heller is Dead. Ass. Wrong.

The Web of Language

blogs.illinois.edu

 

[spamking]

All 50 states have laws banning private militia activity. These types of laws were found to be constitutional by SCOTUS way back in 1886.

I think we need to clarify something. I misspoke when I stated there were two types of militias. There aren't. There is one militia with two classes. The two classes are organized and unorganized. I never mentioned "private" militias.

“Well-regulated” specifically refers to being well-regulated by the government; it is true that in times of a draft, private citizens could be conscripted into a well-regulated militia.

In the 18th century "well-regulated" did NOT specifically refer to being "well-regulated" by the government. You know this. Stop pushing that tired old tripe. Sure, there is the implication of some level of government oversight, but we both know what the term means as written in the 2A . . . a capable and prepared military force made up of "ordinary" citizens.

But you right now are not part of any well-regulated militia.

I never said I was . . . I don't need to be.

But if you want to have that discussion about how we can revamp the idea of the militia as a means for so many of us to personally do our part for the country by all means . . . let's have it.

It's reasonable to expect citizens to take personal responsibility for their country, and the most fundamental duty is to defend it. The reference to a militia in the Second Amendment, when taken seriously, supports the idea of empowering Americans to safeguard their freedom rather than limiting it.

In fact, to ensure the security of a free state, it’s essential that every healthy, law-abiding citizen has access to a legitimate combat rifle and is prepared to respond swiftly to protect both the nation and the Constitution.

This point of mine really isn’t even debatable anymore.
I touched on this already earlier ITT, but I’ll repeat it again:

In preparation for SCOTUS to hear Heller, the historian Saul Cornell was able to find more than 100 colonial-era examples of the phrase “bear arms,” with 96% of them relating to militia service specifically. SCOTUS still side-stepped them.

But nowadays with rise of a discipline called corpus linguistics and the advancement of technology, we have full-on databases of colonial-era texts. Databases like COFEA (the Corpus of Founding Era American English), and COEME (the Corpus of Early Modern English).

A search of them found 900 colonial-era examples of the phrase “bear arms,” and nearly all 900 related to an organized military/militia context. Only 7 of them were either ambiguous or carried no military context.

Those databases only have the phrase “keep arms” in a relevant context 26 times—and 25 out of 26 times refer to militia or military context (the one that doesn’t, is ambiguous).

There’s really no question that SCOTUS defined these terms incorrectly. I know you don’t want it to be that way, and I’m super sorry, but the interpretation of the 2A in Heller is Dead. Ass. Wrong.

The Web of Language

blogs.illinois.edu

Think about this for a second. Would the practical meaning of the Second Amendment be clearer to us today if it read 'The people shall have a right to bear arms because a well-trained militia is necessary to preserve a free state.' Maybe.

The original authors of the amendment tried to convey a deeper philosophical principle rooted in the Enlightenment view of natural rights. At the time, many political thinkers believed that certain rights—such as the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms—were inherent and predated any form of government. Effectively saying, that these were rights individuals naturally possessed, regardless of whether a formal state existed to grant them. This came into play with how the 2A was written in a way that reflects this belief, effectively saying, 'Because you naturally have the right to bear arms and this right contributes to the preservation of a free state, the government shall not infringe upon it.'

This structure reflects the broader historical context in which the Bill of Rights was written. In the wake of the American Revolution, there was a strong mistrust of centralized power and a desire to protect individual liberties. It seems rather obvious that the Founding Fathers were asserting that rights like the right to bear arms were inherent and not subject to government approval. By framing the 2A this way, they underscored the idea that government should protect, not restrict, rights that were seen as essential to individual freedom and the preservation of liberty.

Why does it seem so many like to go against the established principle of interpreting Constitutional provisions in a way that preserves their meaning? It almost seems like liberals have nothing but disdain for the Bill of Rights.

 

[BFoe]

I think we need to clarify something. I misspoke when I stated there were two types of militias. There aren't. There is one militia with two classes. The two classes are organized and unorganized. I never mentioned "private" militias.

Yes, under today’s federal law there are 2 classes, that’s fine.

You are talking about private individuals “bearing arms”—and when I say “bearing arms” I’m speaking of that phrase as it was used and interpreted in 1792– and outside the context of a state militia (or military), that is not a thing. But I’ll address that more as I go through your points below.

In the 18th century "well-regulated" did NOT specifically refer to being "well-regulated" by the government. You know this. Stop pushing that tired old tripe. Sure, there is the implication of some level of government oversight, but we both know what the term means as written in the 2A . . . a capable and prepared military force made up of "ordinary" citizens.

No no, what I’m saying is true in both contexts.
Are you part of a state militia that regularly has weapons inspections, drills, trains, and so forth? No? Then you are not part of a well-regulated militia.

And government militias (or militaries) are who bears arms in the context that the 2A refers to it. not private individuals.

You are not bearing arms in the constitutional sense when you shoot for sport.
You are not bearing arms when you go hunting.
You are not bearing arms when you shoot someone in self-defense.
None of those things are examples of bearing arms in the sense that it was used and understood when the 2A was written. This was explicitly defined in the first state supreme court case on this topic, Aymette v TN in 1840; and it is borne out by the fact that we have nearly 900 examples of colonial-era texts which use the term as I defined it, and practically 0 texts that use it the way you think it should be used.

“A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he had a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
—TN state Supreme Court, Aymette v State of TN, 1840

I never said I was . . . I don't need to be.

But if you want to have that discussion about how we can revamp the idea of the militia as a means for so many of us to personally do our part for the country by all means . . . let's have it.

It's reasonable to expect citizens to take personal responsibility for their country, and the most fundamental duty is to defend it. The reference to a militia in the Second Amendment, when taken seriously, supports the idea of empowering Americans to safeguard their freedom rather than limiting it.

In fact, to ensure the security of a free state, it’s essential that every healthy, law-abiding citizen has access to a legitimate combat rifle and is prepared to respond swiftly to protect both the nation and the Constitution.

Again, you *do* need to be (in a militia to bear arms).
And it’s not “a free state,” it’s “a free State”—capital S, meaning one of the 50 States.

A well-regulated militia was necessary to defend the States; a bunch of unregulated, disorganized individual people carrying all sorts of firearms all over the place is not “necessary to the existence of a free State,” and in fact I’d argue that it threatens the safety and security of citizens of the state actually.

Think about this for a second. Would the practical meaning of the Second Amendment be clearer to us today if it read 'The people shall have a right to bear arms because a well-trained militia is necessary to preserve a free state.' Maybe.

The original authors of the amendment tried to convey a deeper philosophical principle rooted in the Enlightenment view of natural rights. At the time, many political thinkers believed that certain rights—such as the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms—were inherent and predated any form of government. Effectively saying, that these were rights individuals naturally possessed, regardless of whether a formal state existed to grant them. This came into play with how the 2A was written in a way that reflects this belief, effectively saying, 'Because you naturally have the right to bear arms and this right contributes to the preservation of a free state, the government shall not infringe upon it.'

This structure reflects the broader historical context in which the Bill of Rights was written. In the wake of the American Revolution, there was a strong mistrust of centralized power and a desire to protect individual liberties. It seems rather obvious that the Founding Fathers were asserting that rights like the right to bear arms were inherent and not subject to government approval. By framing the 2A this way, they underscored the idea that government should protect, not restrict, rights that were seen as essential to individual freedom and the preservation of liberty.

Why does it seem so many like to go against the established principle of interpreting Constitutional provisions in a way that preserves their meaning? It almost seems like liberals have nothing but disdain for the Bill of Rights.

Former SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger said the 2A was the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud ever perpetrated on the public by special interest groups. This fraud is why it “seems” to you that people like me are going against interpretations of the Constitution that preserve their meaning, when in fact I am not.
It’s vitally important for the safety of all Americans that we see this for what it is.

James Madison’s notes from the constitutional convention don’t mention a single thing about an individual right to have a gun for sport or self defense. Nor was it mentioned in any significant way in the ratification debates of the various states.

In 1934, the NRA supported the National Firearms Act.
In 1972, the GOP had gun control as part of their platform.
For the NRA, this all changed in 1977 at the Revolt at Cincinnati, when NRA leadership was ousted by radicals who turned it into a political force. By the time Reagan ran for POTUS in 1980, the GOP’s gun views had done a 180.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

www.brennancenter.org

Yes, as the Constitution was being written, there was mistrust of a centralized power. Thus, your paraphrasing of the 2A is close, but it needs one more word added, and then some clarification as to meaning.
This:

'Because you naturally have the right to bear arms and this right contributes to the preservation of a free state, the government shall not infringe upon it.'

Should more accurately say:
“'Because you naturally have the right to bear arms and this right contributes to the preservation of a free state, the federal government shall not infringe upon it.'

—What does “bear arms” mean? To use arms in the context of organized military or militia service. Ex: “Disagreements over the institution of slavery lead the South to secede from the Union and bear arms against the North.”

—What does “infringe” mean? A law passed by the federal government that would disarm the citizenry such that the state would not be able to assemble a militia.

Most of the things the pro-gun crowd complains about are not infringements—they’re mild inconveniences. Gun registries, regulations on conceal or open carry, safe storage laws…none of these are infringements.

Nothing I am saying is radical, extreme, or even “liberal.” My view of the 2A is the one held by our Founding Fathers colonial citizenry, and the way I think it should function is the way it functioned from 1792-2008 when the Roberts Court got involved.

Your view has been en vogue for a few decades.

 

[My Spot]

 

[Poon Goon]

Like a pocket pistol for dog walking in basketball shorts.

I guess I can somewhat vouch for this gun because I ended up having to use it and it resolved the issue. I was walking my dog and a pit bull/mastiff came out of a hole in a fencing and sprinted toward me and my dog in the street. I started yelling and having to dance around to keep it away from my dog.

The dog got within inches of me and my dog a couple of times. It became clear that the dog wasn't going to back off so I drew, worked the safety, and let one shot off. Pit bull ran back to the yard it came from and I grabbed my dog and started walking home.

I called 911 and explained the situation. Cops came and got my story. We went back around the block so I could show them the gigantic hole in the fence. Didn't see any blood so I assumed I missed. One cop walked me back home so I could show ID and the gun.

Went back to the scene and luckily another neighbor showed up and told the cops that the dog constantly gets out. Apparently someone else in the neighborhood told the owner they were going to shoot the dog too. At one point it seemed like a cop implied that I moved the shell casing and I explained that he could review his dashcam footage and see that I never touched it.

I didn't miss the dog. Hit him in the nose with a Sig V Crown hollow point. Animal control guy said that the dog would probably live and he didn't think the skull was penetrated. I watched him walk the dog out and it was bleeding but seemed okay.

Cop gave me back my pistol and said I did everything I needed to do. Said he didn't tell them I was the shooter, but said I should call police if there is any kind of retaliation. I like dogs so I really didn't want to fucking shoot one while on a nice walk with my dog.

 

[Poon Goon]

I really hope I'm wrong, but this might not be over. Left my house earlier to walk the dog again and saw the owner down my block looking at the houses. I was headed in the opposite direction so he didn't see me.

As I walked I thought it was possible that he was trying to find me to apologize. On my way back I saw him again. He was walking away, but he looked back several times and I know he saw me. Don't think he was looking to apologize, pretty sure he was trying to find my house.

Just wanted to walk my dog today and now I might be involved in some type of blood feud with a moron even though the situation is 100% his fault.

 

[Gutter Chris]

I really hope I'm wrong, but this might not be over. Left my house earlier to walk the dog again and saw the owner down my block looking at the houses. I was headed in the opposite direction so he didn't see me.

As I walked I thought it was possible that he was trying to find me to apologize. On my way back I saw him again. He was walking away, but he looked back several times and I know he saw me. Don't think he was looking to apologize, pretty sure he was trying to find my house.

Just wanted to walk my dog today and now I might be involved in some type of blood feud with a moron even though the situation is 100% his fault.

Hope you are alright and continue to be alright and I'm sorry you had to let one fly at a dog.

A huge pet peeve of mine is people who are in the wrong yet act as if you are the asshole and I'm hoping that isn't what this is gonna turn into for ya

 

[spamking]

 

[spamking]

Yes, under today’s federal law there are 2 classes, that’s fine.

You are talking about private individuals “bearing arms”—and when I say “bearing arms” I’m speaking of that phrase as it was used and interpreted in 1792– and outside the context of a state militia (or military), that is not a thing. But I’ll address that more as I go through your points below.



No no, what I’m saying is true in both contexts.
Are you part of a state militia that regularly has weapons inspections, drills, trains, and so forth? No? Then you are not part of a well-regulated militia.

And government militias (or militaries) are who bears arms in the context that the 2A refers to it. not private individuals.

You are not bearing arms in the constitutional sense when you shoot for sport.
You are not bearing arms when you go hunting.
You are not bearing arms when you shoot someone in self-defense.
None of those things are examples of bearing arms in the sense that it was used and understood when the 2A was written. This was explicitly defined in the first state supreme court case on this topic, Aymette v TN in 1840; and it is borne out by the fact that we have nearly 900 examples of colonial-era texts which use the term as I defined it, and practically 0 texts that use it the way you think it should be used.

“A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he had a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
—TN state Supreme Court, Aymette v State of TN, 1840

Again, you *do* need to be (in a militia to bear arms).
And it’s not “a free state,” it’s “a free State”—capital S, meaning one of the 50 States.

A well-regulated militia was necessary to defend the States; a bunch of unregulated, disorganized individual people carrying all sorts of firearms all over the place is not “necessary to the existence of a free State,” and in fact I’d argue that it threatens the safety and security of citizens of the state actually.


Former SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger said the 2A was the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud ever perpetrated on the public by special interest groups. This fraud is why it “seems” to you that people like me are going against interpretations of the Constitution that preserve their meaning, when in fact I am not.
It’s vitally important for the safety of all Americans that we see this for what it is.

James Madison’s notes from the constitutional convention don’t mention a single thing about an individual right to have a gun for sport or self defense. Nor was it mentioned in any significant way in the ratification debates of the various states.

In 1934, the NRA supported the National Firearms Act.
In 1972, the GOP had gun control as part of their platform.
For the NRA, this all changed in 1977 at the Revolt at Cincinnati, when NRA leadership was ousted by radicals who turned it into a political force. By the time Reagan ran for POTUS in 1980, the GOP’s gun views had done a 180.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

www.brennancenter.org

Yes, as the Constitution was being written, there was mistrust of a centralized power. Thus, your paraphrasing of the 2A is close, but it needs one more word added, and then some clarification as to meaning.
This:

Should more accurately say:
“'Because you naturally have the right to bear arms and this right contributes to the preservation of a free state, the federal government shall not infringe upon it.'

—What does “bear arms” mean? To use arms in the context of organized military or militia service. Ex: “Disagreements over the institution of slavery lead the South to secede from the Union and bear arms against the North.”

—What does “infringe” mean? A law passed by the federal government that would disarm the citizenry such that the state would not be able to assemble a militia.

Most of the things the pro-gun crowd complains about are not infringements—they’re mild inconveniences. Gun registries, regulations on conceal or open carry, safe storage laws…none of these are infringements.

Nothing I am saying is radical, extreme, or even “liberal.” My view of the 2A is the one held by our Founding Fathers colonial citizenry, and the way I think it should function is the way it functioned from 1792-2008 when the Roberts Court got involved.

Your view has been en vogue for a few decades.

I'm not sure how I missed this novel . . . .

 

[jefferz]