7 dead, 7 wounded in Santa Barbara shooting rampage

[RickStain]

Isn't the main reason the First Amendment is important is because it's a check on government, right?

Isn't that the main reason for the Second Amendment as well, and really the entire bill of rights?

Do you really think that's a good argument? That they are both under the category of "check on government" and therefore must be equally effective, equally socially valuable and equally important?

Honestly. Do you feel comfortable saying that is an argument you are making?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

The first amendment is more important than the second because it protects more fundamental freedoms, and because the second is an outdated relic that makes society worse in modern life.

There's no reason all the amendments have to be equally important.

It isn't about importance. Even you can't be that blind.

Why is the First Amendment more important than the Second Amendment?

Because guns aren't necessary.

Isn't the main reason the First Amendment is important is because it's a check on government, right?

Isn't that the main reason for the Second Amendment as well, and really the entire bill of rights?

Is the First Amendment more important than the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments?

Guns are necessary for a well-regulated militia. What well-regulated militias do all of these shooters belong to?

 

[doctorquant]

Guns are necessary for a well-regulated militia. What well-regulated militias do all of these shooters belong to?

This is a commonly proffered argument, but my understanding is that it holds very little water among Constitutional scholars. What is known as "The Standard Model" of the Second Amendment (current journos ... what is the style there ... 2nd Amendment, Second Amendment ...?) dismisses the treatment of its justification clause ("A well-regulated ...) as an enabler of its operative clause ("..., the right to keep and bear arms ...). Put another way, just because the Framers felt it necessary to provide a justification clause for the individual right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that they intended to condition said right on the necessity/presence of a militia.

Check out these links (web versions of academic articles) if you're interested:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

And @RickStain, like it or not that was the mindset of the drafters of the Second.

[T]he 1794 Tennessee Constitution, which was adopted just after the adoption of the Bill of Rights and which Thomas Jefferson is said to have described as "the least imperfect and most republican of the state constitutions," contains an explicit recognition of the right--and in fact the duty--of citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government. Article I, Section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution provides:

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Article I, Section 2 provides:
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

One could hardly ask for a more explicit endorsement of an "insurrectionist theory" than this. Nor is Tennessee the only state whose constitution dates from the period of the Framing and contains such a provision. And, of course, the Declaration of Independence states the same theory. So the argument that a constitutional right of revolt was unthinkable or absurd to the Framers contradicts some rather obvious historical evidence to the contrary. That should come as no surprise, really, when we remember that the Framers were, after all, revolutionaries themselves.

 

[Alma]

More from Todd:

"Responsible news outlets need a policy against publishing details about mass killers that might motivate future killers. No more manifestos."

He's not wrong on this point.

Oh, the heck he isn't. "Why" is one of the first questions we ask.

 

[RickStain]

And @RickStain, like it or not that was the mindset of the drafters of the Second.

You are absolutely right. The semantic "well-regulated militia" argument just doesn't hold up, as far as I'm concerned. The clause is declarative and the right is listed out pretty unambiguously, regardless of the reasoning listed before it. It doesn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." And the founders clearly didn't mean it that way.

Fortunately, I don't give two craps what some outdated document says or what people whose grandchildren are all dead meant. Guns are harming our society, and if the governing document of our society prevents us from fixing that harm, then it is the document that is in err. And it's not as if we don't have a long history of radically reinterpreting it or ignoring it as our needs evolve.

 

[Alma]

Guns are necessary for a well-regulated militia. What well-regulated militias do all of these shooters belong to?

This is a commonly proffered argument, but my understanding is that it holds very little water among Constitutional scholars. What is known as "The Standard Model" of the Second Amendment (current journos ... what is the style there ... 2nd Amendment, Second Amendment ...?) dismisses the treatment of its justification clause ("A well-regulated ...) as an enabler of its operative clause ("..., the right to keep and bear arms ...). Put another way, just because the Framers felt it necessary to provide a justification clause for the individual right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that they intended to condition said right on the necessity/presence of a militia.

I am not for revoking the 2nd Amendment, but it matters not what the framers intended beyond their willingness to allow the document to be amended.

 

[RickStain]

More from Todd:

"Responsible news outlets need a policy against publishing details about mass killers that might motivate future killers. No more manifestos."

He's not wrong on this point.

Oh, the heck he isn't. "Why" is one of the first questions we ask.

And some small, small part of the answer is "because of the way it is reported."

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

I don't think all 141 pages needed to be released to the public before the bodies were even laid to rest.
I have read a lot of tedious crap in my life, but nothing- anything- quite like that.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Guns are necessary for a well-regulated militia. What well-regulated militias do all of these shooters belong to?

This is a commonly proffered argument, but my understanding is that it holds very little water among Constitutional scholars. What is known as "The Standard Model" of the Second Amendment (current journos ... what is the style there ... 2nd Amendment, Second Amendment ...?) dismisses the treatment of its justification clause ("A well-regulated ...) as an enabler of its operative clause ("..., the right to keep and bear arms ...). Put another way, just because the Framers felt it necessary to provide a justification clause for the individual right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that they intended to condition said right on the necessity/presence of a militia.

Check out these links (web versions of academic articles) if you're interested:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

And @RickStain, like it or not that was the mindset of the drafters of the Second.

[T]he 1794 Tennessee Constitution, which was adopted just after the adoption of the Bill of Rights and which Thomas Jefferson is said to have described as "the least imperfect and most republican of the state constitutions," contains an explicit recognition of the right--and in fact the duty--of citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government. Article I, Section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution provides:

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Article I, Section 2 provides:
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

One could hardly ask for a more explicit endorsement of an "insurrectionist theory" than this. Nor is Tennessee the only state whose constitution dates from the period of the Framing and contains such a provision. And, of course, the Declaration of Independence states the same theory. So the argument that a constitutional right of revolt was unthinkable or absurd to the Framers contradicts some rather obvious historical evidence to the contrary. That should come as no surprise, really, when we remember that the Framers were, after all, revolutionaries themselves.

So, in other words, somebody like say, Lee Harvey Oswald, could kill the president and claim that they are merely executing their constitutional right to rebel against a repressive government?

 

[Alma]

More from Todd:

"Responsible news outlets need a policy against publishing details about mass killers that might motivate future killers. No more manifestos."

He's not wrong on this point.

Oh, the heck he isn't. "Why" is one of the first questions we ask.

And some small, small part of the answer is "because of the way it is reported."

Disagree. That it was reported at all is a bigger factor than how, IMO.

Which is to say, never report killers and bad things.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

I am not for revoking the 2nd Amendment, but it matters not what the framers intended beyond their willingness to allow the document to be amended.

How quaint.

 

[Alma]

I am not for revoking the 2nd Amendment, but it matters not what the framers intended beyond their willingness to allow the document to be amended.

How quaint.

Ain't it?