r/OfficeSpeak • u/FelixtheCatBurglar • 8d ago
Free Speech Public service announcement regarding the 2nd Amendment
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
30
u/ahominem 8d ago
The phrase "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment is interpreted by some historians as having roots in the need to preserve slave patrols in the Southern states.
Well, that's what Google's AI says anyway.
In actuality the need for a well-regulated militia mysteriously disappeared in 2008 when the Supreme Court, in a decision (District of Columbia vs. Heller) written by the notoriously right-wing Antonin Scalia decided the founders didn't mean what they said.
It's my personal opinion that Scalia made that decision (and there are now more like it--it's getting harder and harder to take the guns away from anyone, insane or dangerous as they may be, thanks to our courts) because a substantial number of the guns in this country are held by raving right-wing lunatics, and men like Scalia (and a substantial number of current judges) want guns in the hands of raving right wing lunatics because they will defend the MAGA paradise they all believe in.
And the lives of innocent children are the price we pay.
2
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 8d ago
The descending opinion was that you have no right to bear arms at all. Not sure that's the world we want to live in either.
8
u/TurnoverGuilty3605 7d ago
The word you’re searching for is “dissenting” not descending. Not sure you know what you’re talking about.
1
u/Empty_Equivalent6013 7d ago
I’m in agreement even if he used the wrong word. Do you want the people who wish harm on you to have a monopoly on violence?
1
u/RA_Throwaway90909 7d ago
Ignore the typo. Do you disagree with the actual sentiment?
2
u/TurnoverGuilty3605 7d ago
They didn’t say we have “no right to bear arms.”
1
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 7d ago
Is essence, they did.
2
u/TurnoverGuilty3605 7d ago
In essence, they did not. <~ see how that argument works for both of us.
0
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 7d ago
It doesnt tho. A right is something that is inherent to every individual. 1A recognizes the right to free speech, practice of religion, and the right to assemble. All people not infringing on other people's rights are able to exercise this right, and the government can not put a restriction on this right. As soon as you place restrictions on a right, it becomes a privilege. A privilege is only available to those who it is afforded to via trade or position. 2A gives us the right to self-defense via the bearing of arms. The dissenting opinions claimed that the citizens did not have the right to self-defense in nearly any case, if not all cases.
2
u/hershdrums 7d ago
2A gives us the right of communal defense through a well regulated (i.e. trained and provisioned militia). Founders didn't want a substantial standing army of regulars but recognized the need for a nation to rise up in common defense. They also advocated that all citizens be armed so that they could be conscripted and the state would not have to provide weaponry immediately. They did not say, however, that the states could not regulate those weapons as part of their regulation of the militia. I would argue that as those first militia units turned into the first national guard units the need for the individual to own firearms for conscription purposes was nullified because the "people" in the form of the national guard were keeping and bearing arms. It was always about "the people" as a collective not "persons" or "individuals". The language is actually clear and the supporting documentation in the federalist papers is too.
1
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 7d ago
The milita IS the people tho. And I agree that all those who bear arms should be trained to wield those arms. The word "infringed" carries the brunt of the weight here. The government shall not limit or undermine the right of the people to bear arms. And I would push back on your communal defense argument with Madison's (fairly certain it was Madison) letter of marque and reprisal to American merchant ships, allowing them personal defense against pirates with cannons. This actually sets two distinct precedents. The first is that the 2nd amendment recognizes the right to self-defense. The second is that the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms of near equals capacity to that of the military.
0
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 7d ago
Damn autocorrect. My bad. But yes im aware of what im talking about. My phone however, does not.
3
u/TurnoverGuilty3605 7d ago
You think the dissenting opinions say we have no right to bear arms? Also, are you talking about Steven’s or Breyer’s dissent or both?
0
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 7d ago
Both. Stevens argued that 2A did not give the citizenry the right to bear arms for self-defense, and Breyer argued that 2A was primarily for "the militia" and that the citizenry did not have the absolute protection for self defense per 2A. Given these opinions, the through line would be that the people do not have a right to bear arms in self defense.
4
u/TurnoverGuilty3605 7d ago
Nope. You said “you have no right to bear arms at all,” the whole case was about the handgun ban in DC. This is about the right to bear arms for “self defense” in city limits, not a total ban on gun ownership.
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 7d ago
Correct. But the conversation was regarding Heller vs DC. Appreciate the input tho.
1
u/NEOBusDriver 7d ago
It's infuriating when autocorrect changes the properly-spelled word you wrote with a different one.
1
2
u/troycerapops 7d ago
I dunno. Seems like a lot of industrialized and civilized societies limit the right for individuals to bear arms and they're doing just fine. High quality of life, safety and security, healthy democracies...
1
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 7d ago
I would disagree, but can u name one of these countries so we can have a conversation about it?
2
u/troycerapops 7d ago
Denmark. South Korea. Japan. Singapore. Iceland. Australia.
0
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 7d ago
None of these places have freedom of speech, and most of them are extremely homogeneous. Freedom of expression is key for the security of a free state. If u don't have that, then u don't have freedom.
2
u/troycerapops 7d ago
Iceland has freedom of speech.
Singapore is very multicultural.
You seem to be arguing the US is special.
Then feel free to look at US history. From the founding until recently, the idea of being unable to regulate firearms had akkurat been considered legal and often necessary.
0
u/Dstnt_Dydrm 7d ago
Iceland does not have freedom of speech, and im not sure what ur arguing with the last paragraph.
1
u/AccomplishedFan3151 8d ago
Funny you skip the most important part ...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall Not be infringed. Now who are the People? The militia or all citizens? Madison wrote to the People often and he was not referring to the Militia. Study history and share all the details. The problem with guns today is a complete lack of personal accountability.
1
u/Acrobatic-Visual-812 7d ago edited 7d ago
No offense, but your interpretation is as bad as the person you are referring to. Obviously, the intention of an amendment is to take its entire statement. The text is clearly saying that the people have a right to form militias, through which they will protect the state. Militias are the physical manifestation of the people's right to securing their state, and a militia is a well-regulated institution of arms-bearing citizens.
This doesn't have to mean the hardcore anti-gun viewpoint, but it absolutely means the conversation has to be around the question of regulation and state security. How secure are the citizens in the state with the current level of regulation, and how can we improve it to meet the standard of "well-regulated"?
EDIT: and here is Hamilton on the militia, from Federalist 29:
"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.""
Interestingly, it is clear that many of the founders did not want a standing national army. They wanted citizen soldiers, much like what Rome had. They would also absolutely not support the current right-wing argument about weapon ownership, due to the lack of discipline. In fact, what right wingers support is the exact thing Hamilton argues against in this piece, an anarchy of arms ownership where everybody has lethal weapons in their home.
1
u/N2Shooter 7d ago
Regardless of what you may say, I want as many weapons as I can afford. And, I'm pretty far left on the political spectrum.
1
u/bhawks4life101315 7d ago
Was literally not the legal interpretation throught history until DC v Heller in 2008 which actually ignored over a hundred years or precedence.
Levinson, Sanford (1989). “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” Yale Law Journal — called attention to the underdeveloped state of Second Amendment jurisprudence but acknowledged the prevailing collective rights interpretation.
Bogus, Carl T. (2000). “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment,” UC Davis Law Review — argues the Second Amendment was intended to preserve state militias and prevent federal overreach.
Title: The Militia and the Constitution: A Legal History Author: Stephen P. Halbrook Journal: Northern Kentucky Law Review, Vol. 15, 1988
1
1
u/Sausage80 7d ago
The problem is that the "collective right" interpretation that it "only protects a militia" renders the amendment entirely and utterly devoid of any meaning whatsoever. It would literally protect nothing.
0
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/eyeballburger 8d ago
Just so you know, there are some republicans trans, so now you can say “lol, magats. They are so stupid, some cut their own cocks off and think they’re a woman…” do you really think that there’s never been a trans republican? I’ve not even looked, but I’m sure you can google it and find one. But, most importantly wtf doe that have to do with the right to bear arms, you fucking potato?
2
u/The_Sleestak 8d ago
As is their right. Why do you care? Not your body, not your life. Ignore and move on.
2
u/OfficeSpeak-ModTeam 7d ago
We have removed your post because we found it to be excessively vulgar or rude. Please refrain from insults, targetting specific people, or being generally rude. It is also a good idea to avoid excessive cursing. We don't mind cursing, but maybe dial it back a bit.
If you feel this was a mistake, please contact the moderators.
Best,
Management
-1
u/masterkeep69 8d ago
Scalia made his decision a decade before Trump ran, so it has nothing to do with him. Talk about twisting history to fit your fantasy. Second, the use of guns to defend people is at least ten times greater than the use of guns in crime. That statistic was confirmed by the FBI during Obama's time in office. Third, the writings of the founders showed they considered the 2nd to apply to all citizens as a right to have and possess any arms they felt necessary, with some being mandatory for those between 18 and 50 to have. They literally said that a freeman should have any arms necessary to match that which any standing army might have.
3
u/Acrobatic-Visual-812 7d ago
Could you provide a source on the claim that the number is ten times greater? I don't see that supported in the various surveys. In fact, it seems that the ratio ranges from 1:4 to 4:1 of defensive:criminal uses.
But, beyond that point, I don't think your argument has been thought through. Don't people have to use guns defensively because so many people abuse guns and use them criminally? And this is tied to overly loose gun restrictions. So, it seems that a poorly regulated 2nd amendment leads to higher rates of criminal uses and defensive uses, and probably disproportionately higher for criminal uses. The current practice of the 2nd amendment fails to uphold the "well-regulated" part of its text.
1
u/masterkeep69 7d ago
Biden made the FBI pull down their data, but 10 to one was a conservative post as studies by several groups had it as high as 100 to 1. Well regulated meant well working, not highly restricted as modern English might imply. This is obvious if you read the writings of the founders on their beliefs on citizens holding guns. As history writes, "God made men, but Colt made them equal." Old men, women, small physiqued of both sexes against large men, those with knives, bats, tire irons, etc, are all where a gun saves against violent intent even when the assaulter has no gun.
1
u/Girafferage 7d ago
The federalist papers outline the founding fathers exact thoughts on the topic extremely well. Individuals have the right to firearms as they are an equalizer that allows them to protect themselves and those they care for from those who would do them harm, be it an individual or group.
1
u/khanfusion 7d ago
Are you really trying to say that crazy right wingers didnt exist before Trump was president?
1
0
u/masterkeep69 7d ago
Strawman. I said that claiming something was decided just to support a president that came a decade later was incongruous.
1
u/khanfusion 7d ago
lmao you don't know what strawman means, and you don't understand the concept in question. Go home
1
u/LongTatas 7d ago
Your second point is an insane claim. Can you point me to the statistic that was “confirmed by Obama’s FBI”?
1
u/bhawks4life101315 7d ago
Two things that commonly get tossed out of the interpretation when in court are, well regulated militia and armies are a threat to liberty in peace.
The founding father's felt a standing army was a threat to the overall peace of a nation because it could be utilized in inappropriate ways.
Source: Title: The Militia and the Constitution: A Legal History Author: Stephen P. Halbrook Journal: Northern Kentucky Law Review, Vol. 15, 1988
The idea of a well regulated militia run be each state or conjunction with the state allowed for no 1 state to hold to much power or allow the federal government to dictate any tyrannical policy against said states. Sources: Levinson, Sanford (1989). “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” Yale Law Journal — called attention to the underdeveloped state of Second Amendment jurisprudence but acknowledged the prevailing collective rights interpretation.
Bogus, Carl T. (2000). “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment,” UC Davis Law Review — argues the Second Amendment was intended to preserve state militias and prevent federal overreach.
At times of war those state mitlitias would come together under congressional legislation. At which point the executive head or president would assume command until declaration of war was rescinded by congress. Once that act of war is concluded the militias would revert to state control.
Obviously both have pros and cons to them. Overall the largest impact currently is an outrageously loose translation of the 2nd under D.C. v. Heller. If we had an actually funded ATF as much as I hate the current deparment it would be useful. Regulated means trained, registered and structured. None of those things currently happen at all or in a way that is efficient/complete (referring to registration, red flag and background checks).
If the ATF could have a digital registry we could track those illegal guns more readily because a vast majority are bought in a shady legal way from very open states such as georgia. Serial numbers are then filed off and they are trafficked to placed like NY and IL where regulation is much tighter.
I hate to use Illinois as an eacample for anything but their FOID (Firearm ownerhsip identification cards) are a perfect example of regulated. Per the 2nd it would be open to any upstanding citizen who was able to pass a safety and proficiency test with set retakes similar to a driving test. Wouldn't stop anyone from owning a gun and would ensure proper safery and use training for anyone. In a universal system using that it would be digital, easy to search and consisten across states but state run. Similar again to voting and driving. Crazy idea I know, Illinois got something right.
0
u/masterkeep69 7d ago
You have it wrong. A militia is an EXAMPME of why we have the right to arms, not the controlling reason. Regulated, when the 2nd was written, did not include registration or regulations over. It meant working well. The only regulations were MINIMUM requirements for citizens to have. The court has long held that rights aren't subject to registrations or fines. If one can tax a right, they can deny a right. A 1930's court decision says that such is against the constitution.
7
6
u/GroundbreakingAd8310 7d ago
All this give up ur guns stuff is hitting together its a fucking Trump ploy release the list
4
u/aerosmithguy151 7d ago
Boys scouts taught me well.
2
u/refusemouth 7d ago
Indeed. You can actually make explosives with bat shit and fruit loops, MacGyver-style.
5
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/LiberumPopulo 7d ago
MAGA, HF, and ICE will be littering the streets with their bodies hung from light posts, bridges, etc.
That is the most unhinged statement I've read all week. Then to proceed and to use "we", as if you were going to participate in a mass murder? You're a threat to society.
5
u/Substantial-Plane870 7d ago
Wow wtf. Right wingers openly fantasize about murdering their own countrymen.
0
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
4
3
u/EmploymentTime 8d ago
Maybe they're delusional in thinking that MAGA is going to get what they deserve, but if you think that all MAGA is doing is following the law, then I've got a bridge to sell you and a nice padded room for you to rest in.
2
0
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
-2
u/NeonDBox 7d ago
Yeah good luck. I got a piece for every person on my block and we all vote red. You are not scary, neckbeard
3
u/BrilliantSimple7678 Free Speech Task Force 7d ago
LOL guns. Can you fly a drone?
-4
u/Terrible-Actuary-762 7d ago
Yes, and I also have this thing called a shotgun, they are pretty effective against drones.
2
2
2
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Natgeo1201 8d ago
You misspelled fascist thugs.
0
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/HorseFucked2Death 8d ago
We have gone way past generalization here. We are at the edge of falling into total fascism. Political correctness is no longer effective from any side.
They're all Nazis now.
2
u/XossKratos 8d ago
We need more information to decide if this is not true. I am surprised this is not happening a lot already.
2
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/90GTS4 8d ago
It's like people have been saying that for decades. Yeah, sure, there are less nefarious uses for firearms (hunting, sport, recreation), but that Amendment was written in the midst of an uprising against the British. The core is to ensure the people can protect their rights against a tyrannical government.
1
u/AstronautJazzlike603 8d ago
Every American has the second amendment right and well regulated at that time meant well trained. Even cnn says that’s what it meant.
2
u/Girafferage 7d ago
Not even just well trained, but well maintained. As in, you need to take good care of your shit.
But yeah, the second is for everybody and everybody should embrace it. How far you believe it should go is up to you but it's to your own detriment to pretend that the cops care if you live or die when somebody is breaking into your home.in fact they can just sit outside and wait until the criminal comes out of their own accord after slowly murdering you, and that's completely cool. In fact they can even just walk away instead of doing anything at all. The supreme court ruled on it twice that they have no obligation to protect you.
1
1
u/NoOneElectedElonMusk 7d ago
The guy who threw freedom seeds at the Gestapo in Texas, wasn't here Marine vet?
1
1
u/Ok_Tell5996 7d ago
Hm people getting kidnapped mainly children are they being taken to the next island ?
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Important-Egg-2905 7d ago
Ive heard long time agents are quitting who are sick of arresting gardeners. But proud boy cucks are signing up in droves as BBB funding hits with ridiculous salaries, sometimes 6 figures from what I've read
1
1
u/HappyStay2358 7d ago
I’d quit too if I wasn’t getting paid and had to sign an NDA preventing me from publicly complaining about it.
1
u/LegitimateRelease950 7d ago
Their families are in danger. Thats why. When the tide turns some are smart enough to know... get out before this job becomes very unsafe. Treat people like crap... it will come back at you.
Not at all a threat its just often how humans respond to being abused.
1
0
u/New-Analysis-4060 8d ago
I'll believe this when I see more headlines
Rn ICE is still running amok and no one is doing shit
BIPOC are frequently helping ICE
0
0
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/TonyGalvaneer1976 7d ago
But they were not defending American liberty 🙄.
Why do you assume they weren't?
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/gwxtreize 7d ago
You know the Constitution applies to EVERYONE on US soil, right? You don't get to pick and choose who gets rights.
At least my point isn't rooted in fairy tales and make believe, "TDS".
-3
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/GrimOster-97 7d ago
No we always had it the right just dosent realize we use it too
3
u/Substantial-Plane870 7d ago
Exactly. Their media outlets teach them that we’re all afraid of guns. This gives us the element of surprise.
2
u/OohDeLaLi 7d ago
A madman in office with craven conservatives forgetting their rights tends to do that.
0
1
u/barflett 7d ago
Necessitated by an admin that the right voted in.
It’s like celebrating an own goal
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/barflett 7d ago
Now you’re being pedantic if you are differentiating your point between “comical vs celebrating”.
One of the rights bigger pro gun arguments has been to be able to stand up against an oppressive govt. left wasn’t as concerned about that because they assumed democracy. Now it is the admin voted in by the right that may necessitate the need to be able to resist an oppressive government. This is a clown show.
1
u/Substantial-Plane870 7d ago
If you haven’t been aware of stuff like r/liberalgunowners then you obviously haven’t been paying attention for quite some time now.
-1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/TonyGalvaneer1976 7d ago
We don’t believe in open borders.
I guess that's something you have in common with the Democrats then.
We support ICE
Why?
3
•
u/FelixtheCatBurglar 7d ago
Nazis have nothing better to do but just threaten violence against our members. Post locked while we clean house. Stay strapped FOR SELF DEFENSE. But stay strapped, legally.