It's amusing how the left claims we don't want to take your guns , but then always wants to argue the 2nd amendment.. .
I have tried to go over these constitutional arguments time and time again. I just don't know, so I have stopped making any assertions on the meaning of that preamble with that damned sentence with its compound/complex structure and its semicolon. I just know what I want for a sensible gun policy in my state, and I know that I can't ever have it, because that damn sentence is there. If I had to choose, I'd rather we repealed the second amendment and left the 18th in there. It would save more lives and offer states the flexibility to deal with this insanity.
Letting the states regulate consistent with the needs and desires of their population and cultural traditions, makes sense to me. Its not something that should be micromanaged from Washington either direction. Other than regulating interstate transport, and putting up that registry, the Feds should stay the hell out of it. let Alaska do its thing, and let New York do its. I do not see the second as serving a purpose in modern America, as a 'right' protecting our political institutions from the big bad evil feds. That leaves gun access as a policy issue rather than a constitutional question. Yes I realize how very unpopular that makes my views in this forum, and yes I know its never going to happen. My magic wand is never going to work here.
It's the 2nd amendment..it's written in stone..it's funny even Pravda wrote a scathing article a few years back.. warning America to " never give up your guns" .
I am not in the habit of paying much heed to Pravda when it seeks to give advice on how we should run things around here. . Yes it is written in stone, and so both Chicago Illinois and Malheur county in the southeastern corner of Oregon, are stuck with the same damn gun laws, or lack thereof, regardless of how impossible it is for those laws to accommodate their actual risks and needs, and we all have to depend on how those words in that dependent clause are spun, in which appelate decision ,and by which majority of justices. That amendment is going nowhere.
You have to learn from people who gave up their guns to the state a 100 years or so ago... Chicago did ban guns for years until it made its way to the supreme Court and found un ~ constitutional..
I have learned that guns are different than they were a 100 years ago, that cities are different than they were a hundred years ago, that the risks in both rural and urban settings are different than they were a hundred years ago, and that everything from a cell phone, to the automobile, to a 911 universal number, to mass transportation, to a mall, to a modern emergency room, to the relative threats from a pissed off gunslinger in the local saloon , the 18th Street Gang, a meth addict, and a pack of hyennas hungry for your chickens is entirely different too
Perhaps the militia, but not over privately owned firearms for private and legal purposes. The two are not one in the same. The existence of the militia was made contingent upon private firearms ownership not being interfered with. There is nothing to suggest that once the militia had fulfilled its duties and responsibilities, that they were required to relinquish their firearms to the government.
Do you also feel that the states should have the right to regulate other activities according to the needs and desires of their population and cultural traditions, like gay marriage, abortion or polygamy? No, it's still very much a Constitutional question. You cannot just han wave away the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment and various SCOTUS decisions. And for the same reason that you would not want to grant magic wand capabilities to those with opposing views on many others issues.
Or it could be free state as a common noun. I.e. State of mind, state of being. The 2A was written before the standardization of English and it was common practice to capitalize both proper and common nouns.
Well, I can say I disagree with you at to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment rather fundamentally; but I can respect your acknowledgement of it being a right. I've always said that if gun control supporters wanted comprehensive reform they needed to advocate for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and go from there. Very few have acknowledged that; instead choosing to resort to the intellectually dishonest calisthenics most retreat to (I expect because they recognize the nigh-unto-impossible task that would prove to be). When someone can acknowledge the validity of the amendment while voicing disagreement with its merit, I respect that far more than the other.
This is, quite simply, a false dilemma. The affirmation of a collective right by the 2A in no way means that an individual right is not also affirmed (see 9th Amendment). The rights do not compete; they are complementary. An individual right to keep and bear arms reinforces the collective right, by having a nation of COMPETENT militiamen who are familiar and proficient with arms. The collective right reinforces the individual right by repelling forces which would subjugate the people and take that right (and others) away.
No. Absolutely not. In my opinion this is insanity to read “the people” in the Constitution “to speak of towns and counties.” That it is not even an “undifferentiated mass” (read: unruly mob we look down upon and need to control), but “in fact” “to speak of towns and counties”? Let me show you how absurd I believe this argument is…. So when the 10th Amendment actually says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” It really means “are reserved to the states respectively, or to the towns and counties.” In which this case the “or” is superfluous—towns and counties being nothing more than subordinate political entities of the states. (It’s like saying reserved to “my entire body, or my left eye”) And when the 1st Amendment reads: “….the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It really means: “the right of the towns and counties to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Exactly how do “towns and counties” “peacefully assemble”? How do they “petition the government for a redress of grievances”? Do you realize this means I can only petition my government “collectively”? That I have no right to petition my representatives on my own? That Congress can make it a crime for me to petition as an individual citizen—that I have no right to send so much as a letter to my congressman with a complaint? That I must join in with my town or county as a whole to petition? And how? With some majority vote in the town hall before any petition can happen, and then all in favor have to sign it like the Magna Carta? And when the 4th Amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….” It really means: “The right of the towns and counties to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…. So how does this work? I have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the town’s collectively owned trash truck, or the town hall building, or other “collective” vehicles and structures, but my home and my car and my personal papers have no privacy protection whatsoever? And then you endorse this fantasy by supplementing your quoted article with your own assertion: “The use of such a term (“the people”) strongly suggests the right is exercised collectively.” Do you realize you are arguing there is no right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as an individual? That I can be accosted on the street and searched at a whim? That my car can be stopped and searched at will? That my papers can be seized and rifled through at the whim of an irritated government minister? That my house can be invaded by governmental agents at will with impunity? There was a Russian comedian once who said he moved to America and refused to buy furniture from a company because they said they “guaranteed their furniture and would stand behind it for ten years.” He said that was why he left Russia (the old, communist one), because he had had enough of people standing behind his furniture in his apartment. But you are telling me the 4th Amendment allows a governmental official to do just that because I would not be exercising my right “collectively.” Come one now. The 4th Amendment uses the exact same language as the 2nd Amendment (and the 1st) to define the right: “the right of the people.” To quote your own words back at you with a question: When it comes to objecting to an unreasonable and warrantless search of my house, how can I possibly “exercise the right together in group rather than (as) individuals exercising the right in isolation”? Do you realize just how far down the rabbit hole your law review author takes you? I’m sorry to pick on you, but your law review author is not here, and neither are his sources. You, however, are here, and you have chosen to endorse this opinion as your own, while quoting the article for support for what is now your adopted position. Can you answer any of my criticism of it?
Guns are different from abortion or gay marriage because the safety issues and threats are so different in rural areas, wilderness areas etc, than they are in Los Angeles or Miami. That is why city mayors and city councils in large urban centers want gun control options so desperately and those regions outside urban areas are so desperate to keep everything that explodes. One abortion or one same sex marriage or 200 of same does not have a different impact in farm country than they do in a city but easy access to firepower does. .
You are really having problems understanding my posts on this topic so you don't understand my position. I encourage you to reread them, so that we don't have to cover the same ground and wander in circles. You will tell me it is a 'right'. I will tell you it may be or not depending on the direction of appellate prevailing winds, but it should not be a right and the second amendment should be repealed , and then you will say that it is a right and quote recent SCOTUS decisions, as though I was too stupid to understand you the first time and had no acquaintance with those decisions, and I will say the same thing again.
If you feel that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right, and never has been, then yes, we have no common ground and further discussion would indeed be pointless.
I do not know whether the wording as established in the amendment provides for an individual right. I have gone back and forth, but so have some appellate courts. . Current SCOTUS ruling supports your position. I can accept that interpretation as reasonable. I do not believe there should be an individual right to bear arms established at the federal level. I'd rip that second amendment right off the page if I could, to leave no doubt or wiggle room. That's not how this works though.
The militia that is under the regulation of Congress in Article 1 is the same militia in "the context of the 2A".
Why don't you contact the US Army and tell them about your ideas? I'd be interested to see how they would respond when you told them that gun owners shouldn't have to go through basic training. Soldiering and using guns for private purposes such as hunting are different things.
So you have finally abandoned the VPC BS for something else. Too bad you did not read the entire article, or the preceeding articles from the authors (such as David Konig). Konig argues in his several papers that the original intent of the Founders was that individual rights are tied to individual obligations, not to government obligations or government imposed obligations. Of course Konig, being a good gun banner, also in the same papers right after claiming its an individual obligation claims that the founders did not want to limit government authority - a clearly stupid statement, the entire Constitution was designed to limit federal authority. Good that you have evolved beyond VPC, but you still are mired in the swamp.
