In the news

A lot of inspiration for the US Bill of Rights came from John Locke. Our own Bill of Rights from 1689 also talks about the right to keep and bear arms, partly out of anti-Catholicism and the fear that they still had weapons and could potentially rebel against William and Mary, and also because of Locke's fear of tyrannical governments and desire that a government interfering with your rights can be altered or abolished.

The trouble is, the ability to keep and bear arms to protect one's rights has become a key right in itself for Americans, and probably the one which is in most 'danger'.

Basically, blame Locke and Madison.

Regardless of which version you look at, imo the fact that all start with a "well regulated militia/Militia" makes it pretty clear that the intention of bearing arms was meant in a military context.

Exactly. The USA has a ‘well regulated militia’, it’s called the National Guard. The same National Guard that is defined as ‘the militia’ in US law, and basically serves the same purposes as what was known in the UK until recently as the TA.

A lot of heavy weather has come about over the first part of the 2nd Amendment. In reality, its become a pointless distraction to any debate thats going to bring about any meaningful change.

Firstly, the prefatory clause around militias isn't static. The drafts, ratified copies, signed copies and various published copies all differ. As such, no side on the debate (of which there are more than two) can make any reasonable claim to know the mind of any of the framers, nor that they were acting in unified concensus. Certainly the right and the clause cannot be held absolutely in tandem.

Secondly, the amendment has been incorporated in to many legal cases argued at many different level up to the SCOTUS and in relation to many different issues, including other amendments, that striking it as now redundant isn't a matter of debating the preferatory clause. Nor can you simply strike down the right without unpicking all of the subsequent legislation at both federal and state level and rehearing a multitude of cases. Any failing of which would return the amendment to effect unchanged.

Republic Of Florida:

The identities of the vast majority of us remain hidden; We walk among
you. We are in your colleges and universities, We are in your police
departments, We have infiltrated the ranks of the United States Army,
Marines, And even the coast guard. We have an electrical engineer in
our ranks, And an agricultural engineer, As well as welders. We are
the people.

https://republicofflorida.wordpress.com/

2A arguments aside does anybody else find it difficult to advocate for the wholesale removal of guns from private ownership while the police routinely murder people in their communities and the government pursues a programme of further militarisation of law enforcement?

No doubt there are far too many weapons in the wrong hands in the US which leads directly to tragedies like yesterday's, but as long as the above conditions persist I don't know what the solution is. If anybody has been able to reconcile these issues I'd be interested to know how.

Overall I see your point, but I'm not sure this bit is true:

In reality, its become a pointless distraction to any debate thats going to bring about any meaningful change.

When, as far as I understand, it forms part of the legal challenges when gun legislation is attempted at a state level.

Not really. And routinely is a pretty strong statement. One could well argue any militarisation of law enforcement is a direct result of gun ownership.

However, if police and civilians owning guns doesn't deter criminals from using guns when committing crimes, then it seems a stretch to think that police are deterred from murdering people just in case they have a gun. The flip side to that is that it seems unlikely that the police are currently somehow being held at bay by the fear of civilization gun ownership - which I think is the point you are trying to make, right?

One could well argue that but I'd disagree. I'd say further militarisation of the police force has far more to do with vested corporate interests and political dick swinging than it is a proportionate response to any legitimate threats of violence.

I'm not sure I understand your second point. Do you think that if somehow restrictions were placed on citizens' right to bear arms, police forces would willingly scale back their own use of deadly weapons?

With the 2008 SCOTUS ruling in the Heller case then state level legal challenges on gun ownership are all but meaningless. That forms an overarching federal position on constitutionality that states can only strengthen rather than erode.

The depth at which gun culture is ingrained into the American psyche is such that, for meaningful and sustainable change, it will need to be dismantled piecemeal. Given that SCOTUS has ruled that there is no requirement for involvement in a militia as a part of the right to bear arms, any legal challenges citing the preferatory clause, federal, state or otherwise, is fundamentally pointless.

Gun lobbyists were on twitter arguing that mentally ill people will not seek treatment if they think it will prevent them from getting a gun. Therefore, they say there should be no limit on mentally ill people's access to guns. Gun lobby logic.
I think the only hope is that a future, more anti gun SCOTUS will rule against unfettered gun ownership.
Polls show a majority of Americans support restrictions on gun access by mentally ill, also by convicted stalkers.
The problem is that the gun lobby has bought many politicians, some have received millions from the NRA. They disregard their voters and favor their funders. In the US, politicians support whoever gives them the most money. If the anti-gun lobby paid the same politicians more, there is no doubt those politicians would suddenly become anti-gun.

Yes, but as James O'B pointed out on LBC yesterday: there is no profit in opposing gun sales, but lots of profit in selling guns. The former will never out-fund the latter.

Probably the change that is required is a change to lobby group funding.

The same argument applies to many areas of US life brokenness: healthcare, opioids, guns, environment etc.

A few top Republican got 7 million from gun lobby groups. Astounding.
7 million.
And they are getting piles of money from other groups as well. As you say, big pharma, oil, finance, etc
Not much of a democracy anymore.

The Econonist downgraded them recently did they not?

This idea that it’s purely about the money is lazy and misleading. The sums involved are tiny. Yes, America has problems with lobbying and with SuperPAC side channels, but focusing on that is a distraction from trying to shift the discourse.

Tiny in terms of GDP perhaps, but in terms of campaign finance and individual personal wealth?

Tiny in terms of overall lobbying spend, even. Look at the chart. Gun rights donations are small.

a bit more than that...

https://twitter.com/bessbell/status/963891642003419136

but as that graph points out, tiny compared to other subjects. Thats quite an eye opener there.

Something literally doesn't add up here.

The graph shows 7.9million USD total, the tweet shows more than that to just a few republican congressman members.

How blatant is lobbying spend? Where do those millions go? I assume it's not a direct debit into politicians bank accounts. At what point do the politicians personally enrich themselves from it. Is it given to the senators campaign funds, so that they benefit from not having to pay for anything themselves?

This is quite interesting (on how the experience changed the view of an NRA supporter)

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article200242224.html

And this on how the bots influence these kinds of situations

https://www.wired.com/story/pro-gun-russian-bots-flood-twitter-after-parkland-shooting

"I don’t think the Kremlin cares one way or another whether we enact stricter gun control laws," he adds. "It's just being used as bait, basically."

I've said it before but Twitter is a cess pool and the world will be a better place if journalists stop paying it any attention.

Facebook seemingly isn't that great either (as this excellent - but lengthy - article discusses)

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-2-years-of-hell/

Facebook's problem is it's trying to be a publisher but without actually producing anything, just stealing other people's content and hosting it on their own website without paying the producers. That and all it cares about it clicks/views so it's clickbait > facts.

Is there an Oscar for news site photo editors?
Members of Parliament: A brief history of Canberra sex scandals

and this