Oregon Hikers

Since guns, crossbows, bow and arrows, and other weapons* come up often in different threads and points are repeated over and over while new and interesting thoughts/facts/opinions come up as well, I am starting this thread to keep it all in one place.

For example, Mayhem started a thread about masks and big cats and soon guns overtook the thread. I'd like to see it all in one place and hopefully we can stop some thread drift this way. I enjoy hearing both sides of the gun debates as long as they are respectfully made. I also tend to think that this forum is better than most with controversial opinions, so we are setting a good example for how discussions can be fun and informative rather than heated and insulting.

This is in "General Hiking Topics" since it should focus on firearms and weapons as related to hiking, not your opinion on school shootings or which gun looks the coolest. Hopefully the moderators will agree with this.

You may or may not agree with the Second Amendment (below), and I like to keep in mind that Amendments-- by definition-- are subject to change.

Full text of the Second Amendment, passed through Congress in 1789, ratified 1791:

Amendment II
Right to bear arms

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.

*I know, I know. I called it a firearms thread and then added non-firearms as well. Try not to make too big a deal of it.

Oh boy.

Guns, dogs and bikes on the trail are always intense topics on hiking forums. Many forums (fora?) have banned discussions of firearms altogether because of too much flaming.

We've pretty well managed the dogs here (see the lovely "Dogs of Portland Hikers" thread) so far. I hope we can manage the firearms equally well. Good luck to the moderators!

I agree that a separate thread topic would be great and hopefully easier for the mods to manage, if people stick to it. I think that has to be a decision for the admins, though.

Chase wrote:Full text of the Second Amendment, passed through Congress in 1789, ratified 1791:

Actually, no.

Wikipedia wrote:As passed by the Congress:

• 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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

• 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

Does punctuation still have meaning? Is it the same now, as it was then? The congressional version, rather than the ratified version, seems to have taken popular hold. (Perhaps because that's how it was in the original hand-written document?)

• 
  Click for enlargement suitable to read.

So then, there's the issue of what exactly were "well regulated militias" back then. Fairly convincing arguments suggest they were widely understood to be state-organized slave recovery operations, and this amendment was offered as appeasement to the southern states. For a southern state to be free and secure, in those days, the preservation of slavery was unquestionably required. (Clearly, the founders knew the difference between states and country, and used those words with great care throughout the rest of the document.) Hard to see anyone trying to defend that these days, which is why (IMHO) you so often hear the 2nd quoted only from the comma (or middle comma, if you so prefer) onward.

Not sure any discussion of the 2nd is worth having, much less honest, without the historical context, eh?

(Yes, you can read the above to be my rationale in support of repeal. I don't honestly see another way, now that the "sides" are so entrenched.)

Personally IMO if the discussion is about the second amendment , then the thread belongs in the idle chatter section as that has nothing to do with hiking. If the discussion is about firearms and other weapons related to hiking or outdoors security/self defense options then that thread belongs in the gear section.

This way, when the occasional comment is made that someone needs a gun for bears, cougars, criminals etc. they could be quickly linked to a discussion that would most benefit them, perhaps preventing thread drift on the OP.

Personally I am all for the Eighteenth Amendment! These Amendments are all set in stone.

Koda wrote:Personally IMO if the discussion is about the second amendment , then the thread belongs in the idle chatter section as that has nothing to do with hiking. If the discussion is about firearms and other weapons related to hiking or outdoors security/self defense options then that thread belongs in the gear section.

Good call.

I agree--Idle Chatter, and in the meantime go no further with this thread until the site administrators have ruled on it. (One person's opinion here; I'm not an admin or moderator here.)

I have some historical comment, but it most definitely doesn't belong here. I will wait for the admins to decide.

I think I'd have to debate that one Karl!

The Dick Act of 1902 does a fairly good job at laying out the definition of militia by splitting it into 2 classifications, the "organized militia" aka the National Guard, and the 'unorganized militia' encompassing every "able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45".

There was a purposeful and clear distinction between a national federal army, and the individual states militia at the founding of the country. The federal side had extremely limited duties and authority, because the states themselves were seen as sovereign states, and had a duty to provide their own military to protect their own people and borders.

If you want to get historical, the typical definition for 'arms' would the standard issue infantry soldiers weapons. The general public is already behind the curve for that standard, since the standard soldier would be issued a rifle capable of either burst or fully automatic fire. It is possible for a civilian to own a Title II weapon there's just a boat load of taxes and hoops to jump through!

I take issue with saying that the 2nd was there only to protect slave owners, or that it's a racial thing at all. The 2nd was created because the founders had a clear understanding of oppressive, and over reaching government, which is what most all of the bill of rights were aimed at, so why would #2 be any different?

Hey Lurch! I don't want to reiterate the entire article I linked to, which laid it all out pretty well. But as you said, it was the fear of oppressive government that led to the Bill of Rights, and the southern states were extremely fearful of a national army usurping their own militias. (The slave patrol aspect of these militias was simply what they were mainly used for at the time. It's what drove their economies.) So, I agree, it's absolutely no different in that regard. The principal difference was that this was a "right" enumerated for the benefit of states, specifically, moreso than individuals, which is pretty clear from the opening phrasing.