[ktkoffroth]

Not GP, but I would imagine it's mainly a privacy concern. Some people feel that the government knowing you have guns defeats the purpose of having them in the first place, as they can theoretically be taken at any time. A Concealed Carry Permit or similar is antithetical to that belief.

[anonymouskimmer]

That makes sense. But presumably you don't have to permit the guns you don't carry around.

And it's a "well regulated militia", not a free for all. But sure, I understand people wanting more rights than they are statutorily entitled to. So do I, on other rights.

[prottog]

> And it's a "well regulated militia", not a free for all.

I think it's intended to be closer to the latter than the former.

The text of the second amendment is: "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".

If as an analogue you said, "A well stocked Library being necessary to the education of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books, shall not be infringed", would you support the idea that only accredited librarians could have books?

Besides, the "militia" includes every able-bodied male between 17 and 45.

[anonymouskimmer]

As I said below, this really depends on whether "the people" was intended as singular, or plural.

In the bill of rights itself we have two very similar amendments (the 1st and 2nd) that are phrased differently despite being about universal rights. And unfortunately the 1st has often enough been interpreted by the courts as a collective right, not a singular right, and that can't all hang on the collective meaning of the word "assemble". "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

> Besides, the "militia" includes every able-bodied male between 17 and 45.

Under current federal statute, but this can easily be changed.

[iotku]

>That makes sense. But presumably you don't have to permit the guns you don't carry around.

Generally, it's not the gun that's permitted it's you as an individual.

You're telling the government "hey I have a gun and here's all of my personal information".

Even if you only carry one around it's not a huge leap to assume that more may exist and if confiscation were to happen they know you have at least one (and probably more than one) to seize.

Not to mention said information is stored in databases where the information can (and has been) stolen [1] which may lead to you becoming a more valuable target for theft.

I can legally (but not wisely) carry a firearm in the open in my state, but if I don't want everyone to know about it and "conceal" it I have to tell the government and be put in a database that may get leaked.

>And it's a "well regulated militia", not a free for all

There's plenty of debate over that term (and if it's just some antiquated terminology or not), but it is followed by "the right of the people" (not explicitly just some "militia" for what that's worth).

I'm not in favor of it being a true free-for-all and there's plenty of restrictions on who should be able to have guns which are seemingly reasonable (with appropriate due process), but realistically that only affects those who comply with laws.

>I understand people wanting more rights than they are statutorily entitled to.

I want as many rights as possible for the most amount of people. Of course this one is one of the most contentious given the risk of harm (which should be acknowledged in any honest argument), but in my estimation if you consider it a right (which not everyone does clearly) you should defend it because there's no shortage of governments wishing to remove rights from its people.

>So do I, on other rights

Without going too far down the slippery slope, which other rights are you willing to compromise on with the least generous interpretation?

Or would you rather prefer the strongest interpretation that maintains the most personal protections at the risk of a safety over freedom?

2A aside, I think there's a bunch of rights including speech and privacy rights the government would like to bypass for the supposed sake of perceived safety. After all we have to stop the terrorists and protect children, the ends justify the means.

[1] https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/12/how-did-confidenti...

[anonymouskimmer]

> and there's plenty of restrictions on who should be able to have guns which are seemingly reasonable

Is it the "people" as a group of singular individuals, or the "people" as a group. I almost wish the founders had set up the same structure that Switzerland had, instead of making it so ambiguous. Because as is it seems any restriction may be unconstitutional. Why should felons or those declared to be non compos mentis be specially excepted?

> Without going too far down the slippery slope, which other rights are you willing to compromise on with the least generous interpretation?

It's been a few years since I've really thought about this and I can't recall them to mind at this time. I'm distracted by other things in life at the moment.

> Or would you rather prefer the strongest interpretation that maintains the most personal protections at the risk of a safety over freedom?

One person's right is another person's limit. I'm generally in favor of the Scandinavian/Californian right for the public to pass through, and even use, certain property regardless of ownership. But as a bleeding-heart vegetarian I'd be enraged if I ever manage to own land, and a hunter passed onto my property to kill animals who I know by name.

I personally will probably never own a gun because historically I know I probably would have, at minimum, brandished it out of anger. I value my own freedom, and the safety of others, too much to own a gun. And from what I've read in news articles it seems a bunch of other people should do the same. But they don't. You can try to train morality, but you can't force others to use it.

The government acting the way it does is an instance of power corrupting. And the powerful not caring about the imposition others must deal with. It, too, is a balancing act.

I want to edit to add:

> but in my estimation if you consider it a right (which not everyone does clearly) you should defend it because there's no shortage of governments wishing to remove rights from its people.

The few times I am aware of that the right to bear arms has been pushed against the US government wanting to remove guns, a lot of people have died, and not on the government's side (thinking Ruby Ridge and Waco).

[iotku]

>Is it the "people" as a group of singular individuals, or the "people" as a group. I almost wish the founders had set up the same structure that Switzerland had, instead of making it so ambiguous.

Aye, it's pretty astounding how language can be so ambiguous that it can be an issue hundreds of years later.

>Because as is it seems any restriction may be unconstitutional. Why shouldn't felons or those declared to be non compos mentis be specially excepted?

Definitely a conflict point I have, I'm far from well educated enough to know the nuance there, but in many cases that felons for instance lose their voting rights as well (which I don't particularly agree with) so there is somewhat of a standard there of restricting some rights even after they've been released.

I don't think I quite go that far, but there are some people who truly believe that any restriction is unconstitutional vs "shall not be infringed".

Ultimately there's got to be a balance somewhere, but I'd prefer the government have to prove that it can justifiably take away someone's rights, rather than being based on mere suspicion that they may do something in the future based on possibly non-violent past behavior (drug possession charges are often felonies for instance for drugs that many states have decriminalized).

>I personally will probably never own a gun because historically I know I probably would have, at minimum, brandished it out of anger. I value my own freedom, and the safety of others, too much to own a gun. And from what I've read in news articles it seems a bunch of other people should do the same. But they don't. You can try to train morality, but you can't force others to use it.

Aye, there's certainly issues with a lot of people having guns and not everyone is going to morally prudent or safe. (or even if they were 99% of the time, that 1% can turn out quite bad)

Perhaps it is truly is a pipe dream, but often the prospective is that if society were to improve (whatever that truly means in the context of mental health, economic security, morality) violence in general (and relatedly gun violence) would reduce as well and that's truly the root cause of many issues. But that's being fairly optimistic on human behavior.

Personally, I think I'm plenty well suited to handle it, but I'm certain many who aren't feel the same and very much aren't.

>The government acting the way it does is an instance of power corrupting. And the powerful not caring about the imposition others must deal with. It, too, is a balancing act.

In theory it leads to somewhat of an equilibrium between both extremes, but of course nobody want's to find themself on the outer edge of that

[anonymouskimmer]

> In theory it leads to somewhat of an equilibrium between both extremes, but of course nobody want's to find themself on the outer edge of that

Especially if, like most of the people who commit crimes, they feel they are justified.