Should states decide on gun ownership?

What law is based solely on philosophy?

And my post addressed this silly post.

One can claim anything some philosophical right, but it is meaningless in terms of laws.
Laws, and more directly, enforcement of laws is what determines rights.

 

People who hear harsh words, for example, think they're literally being assaulted.

 

You intimate the right for Arms ownership in the US doesn't come from state constitutions or The Constitution. Where does this right for Arms for all Americans come from?

 

Dude, all law is based on philosophy. For example, why were no rioters at the BLM/Floyd riots prosecuted while most of the rioters at the capitol on Jan. 6 prosecuted (eventually all the Jan.6 rioters will be prosecuted even though some have languished in jail for over a year w/o a trial)?

 

It does come from the constitution… you know the part that says “the peoples right to keep and bear arms”

and like I said there are quotes at the time of ratification that backs up this original intent.

 

That part at the end of the 2ND which says the right to Arms will not be infringed means that right will not be infringed by The Constitution, IMO. I'm just asking where that right to Arms comes from?

 

What law would you be referring to?

 

That makes no sense.

 

You may have read, but apparently didn't understand.
Where those arms come from is neither mentioned nor relative at all. Thus- it speaks to any and all kinds and sources of arms.
The first statement in regards to militia only recognizes that the security of a nation depends on the people's ability to defend it. That does not speak to the source of arms either.
Crystal clear statement; not ambiguous in any way.


Second Amendment
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.

 

Typical leftist thinking 2+2 equals some random number other than 4. One can not be an authoritarian by way of permitting people to spend their own money on what they wish to buy be it guns or video. Only authoritarians believe they should control other's ability to purchase whatever they want.

 

Lmao… shall not be infringed by the constitution? Are you high?

That part means that the state nor the federal government has the power to restrict arms to its citizens. Would you like quotes from Tench Coxe (a law scholar, and elected official at the time of ratification) that interprets the second in that exact form.

 

Political ideology. Law is political ideology.

 

I know it makes no sense, The BLM/Floyd rioters caused a whole lot more damage to cities than the capitol rioters did to the capitol yet the capitol rioters are persecuted and languish in jail waiting for prosecution but the BLM/Floyd rioters are off scott free. I'm tellin' ya', law and the prosecution of law is more political than anything else. See the example of LA county district attorney Gascon, for example.

 

Why do you disregard the entire content of the 2ND except for this last passage which is. IMO, taken out of context by you and SCOTUS, for examples?

Foolishly, IMO, you're basing the entirety of the meaning of the 2ND on that last phase of the 2ND: ' ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
For example, the federal (the 2ND) isn't infringing on the right to keep and bear Arms but where does that Arms right (and what is that right) which the 2ND dares not to infringe upon come from? Hum? Figure it out, just once.

 

Absolutely right.

Most of the decisions of today will shape tomorrow- and when you fail to stop criminals, fail to deliver consequences, you enable create more crime. When you fail to apply laws equally- you promote unscrupulous conduct among officials, and invalidate law without actually changing them. The things going on right now are the products of the bad decisions, the excess tolerance, the inequity of consequences that have been brought about by the ideologies and radical positions of the left, which the democrats have allowed themselves to adopt.

If we are to shape a better tomorrow, those are things that we must change today.

 

Gun ownership is a federally protected right. The states aren't constitutionally granted that power, as so many states have now found out.

 

You haven't read the writings and the thinking of the guys who ratified the 2ND in 1791.
Joe, you're parroting what the originator of the 2ND, J. Madison, thought about Arms rights but that 'universal Arms rights' amendment was massaged and changed and reworded numerous times before its passage.

The 2ND was not intended to be a 'universal Arms rights' amendment by the ratifiers of the 2nd in 1791. Rather, the 2ND was intended to be regulation of states' militias since states' militias protected the federal government since there were no standing armies to protect the federal government.

I'd explain more but I fear I've already lost you and I envision your eyes glazing over, at least.

 

Go ahead state your sources. I will state mine and we will see who is right. I know for a fact it was intended for the people to keep and bear the sword and shield of a soldier with no power given to the state or the federal government to control their rights to do so.

I also have read it and see That anti gunners often misconstrued the wording because they don’t understand historical English or can’t even fathom what an apostrophe means.

you seem to think you know more about what the second amendment meant than a very credentialed law graduate and senator at the time of ratification? Maybe you can tell me what makes your credentials outweigh his.

 

My OP was intended to contrast the outrage of authoritarians who're complaining about losing federal abortion rights (said rights aren't in The Constitution, IMO) to the outrage of authoritarians who would be equally outraged if, hypothetically, federal Arms rights were lost (said Arms rights are also not in The Constitution, IMO) due to a future SCOTUS overturn of a previous SCOTUS decision...like this SCOTUS, apparently, planning on overturning Roe V. Wade.

You are correct. Arms ownership is a federally protected right according to previous and, IMO, erroneous SCOTUS decisions like Heller V. DC in 2008. According to the originators of the 2ND, latter SCOTUS decision(s) to federally mandate Arms for all Americans was erroneous. Why don't you read the writings of the ratifiers of the 2ND in 1791?

 

You haven't read any of the writings of the ratifiers of the 2ND in 1791. You may have read the writing of the originator of the 2ND, J. Madison, (who wanted a universal Arms right amendment) but Madison's original was debated and reworded and passed as the 2ND which was much different than Madison's original.

You want a good source on this? Read the book "The First Congress" by F. Bordewich.

 

I didn't disregard anything, I specifically explained in simple language anyone could understand. It's probably foolish to try, but lets explain further.

You obviously do not understand that first statement- and that would probably hinge on not understanding what a "militia" is.

A militia is the people- acting as a force, to defend the people . It's NOT an army per se, it is the coalition of citizens able to act together if and when it is needed. It can be small or large, that depends on the challenge it faces. However, it relies on the capacity of the individual citizens, not the supplies of government; it must arm itself- so we stay armed.

At the beginning of the civil war, the army of the south was far larger than the army of the north. President Lincoln knew he needed immediate help, and he issued a call to private citizens to form militias to help defend the union. They had to furnish their own arms and ammunition, their horses and uniforms if they chose to wear them. In a matter of a few weeks- the northern army gained 75,000 soldiers in the form of volunteer militia members. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is literally the reason why the Union won the civil war.

That's documented extensively; before you argue it- read up on it.

An armed citizenry has the capacity to become a defensive force as large as the entire nation, if necessary. An unarmed one in the same position of need, has nothing.
That statement insures your freedom, and backs up our standing army. Backs up our ability to defend against all enemies- foreign and domestic, which is also a part of the oath of office of every member of congress and major political office, and of every soldier and veteran of our military- and while I took that oath long ago, and it still stands.

The second amendment stands between you- and tyranny.
It doesn't require you to own a gun of course. In time of dire need, others who do would fight and die for you.

 

Yes leftists know a lot about things they know nothing about.

We know.

 

you must be talking about the deliberations of the constitution and I have read them. They even suggested that the age limit should be 16 to own a firearm but it was ultimately left out. I will look into the book you mentioned. You should look into the book “second amendment primer” and that will change how you look at it.

 

Arms are typically considered portable, so nukes would not be covered.

You can own explosive devices like grenades. You did know that, didn't you?

I wouldn't own them just because I used to have to carry them and never trusted them.

You can't keep a grenade pointed in a safe direction. I suppose you could with a claymore.

 

No, there's no ambiguity over gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment would have to be stricken down by 2/3 of the States to change what they can do.