quote Originally posted by 2.5: Some guy said "The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others." Maybe that is up to one's own personal interpretation? But this isn't: The Second Amendment Is The Right That Makes All Others Possible.

And..?

I haven't said that private access to and ownership of firearms (and ammo) should be eliminated.

Raising the minimum age, nation-wide, from 18 to 21, before someone can purchase a semiautomatic firearm in a legal transaction? That's not infringing on the Second Amendment. Nor was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which designated fully automatic firearms like "Tommy guns" and "sawed off" shotguns as a special class of firearms, subject to a $200 tax on manufacture or sale (in 1934) and recording of the sales in a federal registry.

I think a strong case is being made that semiautomatic firearms of current and more recent times (more recent than 1934), together with the magazines that enable easy personal conveyance and rapid loading and reloading of large amounts of ammunition, and on top of all that, hollow point ammunition (Uvalde), have become the "Tommy guns" of current and recent times.

One obvious problem with background checks is that an 18-year old, like the Uvalde perpetrator, doesn't present much of a background (in terms of years of life) that could be scrutinized before allowing a purchase. Age 21, at least, three more years of life on background to scrutinize.

Garrett Epps, William Hogeland, Thomas P. Crocker... authors whose articles I have presented. They've actually studied the Second Amendment...



unlike the crowd that has fetishized the semiautomatic firearms industry with pablum like this.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-10-2022).]

------------------
Rams

Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.........

quote Originally posted by blackrams:

That doesn't ring true to me.

It seems like a familiar refrain: "The perpetrator purchased the firearm(s) and ammo (and sometimes, the body armor) from a federally licensed firearms dealer in a (series of) legal transaction(s). The perpetrator met the minimum age requirement and was cleared for (all of) the purchase(s) by the system of background checks."

That seems like a familiar refrain in quite a number of high profile shootings like the Uvalde atrocity. Not always, obviously; but not uncommon, either, in these kinds of cases.

I think about some future perpetrator in a hypothetical way.

What if there were some changes at a state or national level, in terms of background checks, Red Flag laws, minimum age requirements, or what can lawfully be retailed, before this hypothetical future perpetrator steps up to the plate?

If "FuturePerp" cannot purchase what he wants for his intended crime via legal transactions, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that there's a deterrent effect. I don't think you can ascribe rational thinking patterns to FuturePerp. Not in all the manifestations of FuturePerp that are likely to emerge from the realm of possibilities.

But let me consider what happens if FuturePerp is of a mind to consider illegal ways to equip himself for his intended crime.

He could try to steal what he wants, in a break-in, or by using a knife, or the lesser gun that he already has, to relieve someone else by force of what he wants. "Put your hands up and give me your assault weapon. Uh... check that. Give me your assault weapon and then put your hands up."

He's putting himself in some jeopardy with these efforts. He could be rendered unable (in some way) to commit the crime that he ultimately wants to commit, because of something that happens in the course of, or in the aftermath of this preliminary crime that is only for the purpose of equipping himself for his ultimate crime.

He could try to buy what he wants, or trade for what he wants, in some Black Market or underground transaction. But that may not work out for him, either. Maybe he turns to someone that he thinks will accommodate him, but instead of a deal, he is turned down. He could even find himself in police custody at this point. He could be ensnared in a police "sting" operation.

I look at that photo-meme that was just posted, and I think it is misleading, in the way that it completely discounts the efficacy of stricter restrictions on the legal purchase of firearms and who can legally buy them.

The higher profile atrocities like Uvalde, and just before that, the Buffalo supermarket atrocity, are statistically not much, in terms of the total numbers of firearms-actuated deaths and injuries across the U.S., during the course of an entire year, but they have an outsized and profoundly negative impact on the U.S. and everything that it entails. Including the Second Amendment, itself.

That photo-meme that was just posted doesn't "work" for me.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-11-2022).]

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-11-2022).]

Two experts in Constitutional Law used the power of 21st-century linguistic databases to subject the Second Amendment to semantic analysis, and yet, the meaning of “keep and bear Arms” remains debatable... perhaps, even...



UNXPLAINED


What was in the minds of the Founding Fathers when they settled on the 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment?

quote A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, that is what James C. Phillips and Josh Blackman tried to find out.

"The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment"
James C. Phillips and Josh Blackman for The Atlantic; February 28, 2020.
https://www.theatlantic.com...nd-amendment/607186/


It's not a particularly long article.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-12-2022).]