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. ... There are no absolute rights. Society determines the lines in the sand on where to draw lines on rights. Always have, always will. So any violations of any rights is the result of society. As society, is supposed to, elect the gov't to ensure society's views of rights are protected. It changes as society changes. As of now, infringement is allowed, against the 2A. And likely, we will always have infringements. For as I said, there's no such thing as absolute rights.
"How the Second Amendment was reinterpreted to protect individual rights "But historians say that the notion that the amendment protects people’s right to have guns for self-defense is a relatively recent reading of the Constitution, born out of a conservative push in the 1980s and ’90s.... "It is 'striking' that professed originalists of the constitution, like Scalia, would set aside such a major phrase in the constitution — about militias — in favor of a more modern-day interpretation, Siegel wrote in her paper.... "Susan Liebell, a political science professor at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, said that in the ’80s and ’90s, conservatives began advocating for the appointment of judges and funding of scholars who would interpret the Second Amendment more broadly. "Historians and political scientists don’t fully know why the conservative culture around guns hardened. Around the Reagan era, the National Rifle Association shifted from an organization concerned with gun safety to one protecting gun rights at all costs, Liebell said. "In her paper, Siegel traces the pro-gun movement back to the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling in the 1950s, which desegregated public schools. "She writes that amid the civil rights movement and a nationwide increase in crime, pro-gun supporters framed individual access to guns as part of a law-and-order movement — sometimes in highly racialized terms. In 1975, an NRA leader testified to Congress that 'law abiding … gun owners' were different from 'criminals.' https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/31/second-amendment-individual-rights/ The Second Amendment does not say anything about a right to have guns for private purposes.
Those historians are lying. Not striking considering that he was not ruling on that part of the amendment. Nonsense. He upheld the original intent, as he was supposed to. The Second Amendment does not define the right to keep and bear arms. It merely protects a preexisting right from infringement. That preexisting right includes using your guns for the private defense of your home. But, if you want to argue that it is military weapons that everyone has the right to have, be my guest.
That's a constitutional right, not an absolute right. The constitution has been amended several times to clarify or add more rights. Something absolute means it can never ever change and every person or living creature has those same rights. Without bias, prejudice, or subjective meanings.
That's not how I define "absolute right". I define "absolute right" as meaning that if anything contradicts the right in question, the right always prevails. I would use the term "natural right" if I wanted to use definition that you provided above. Some people use the term "God-given right" to also fit the definition that you provided. But sometimes that term provokes a tedious argument with any atheists who are present.
Dictionaries define words. The law uses defined words to create and enforce laws. So, based on the definition of absolute, there are no absolute rights. All rights are man made, created and enforced by a man made entity. The only right one could claim as absolute is the right to life. For most, not all, will fight to remain alive. Absolute has it's own definition and you can not personally change it. ... Definition of absolute 1a : free from imperfection : perfect … it is a most absolute and excellent horse.— William Shakespeare b : free or relatively free from mixture : pure absolute alcohol 2: being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint absolute power 3 : having no restriction, exception, or qualification an absolute requirement A right only exists because society wants it and the right needs an enforcement mechanism to grant and ensure it will exist. There is no such thing as a god given right. No one knows what god would give it and no god ever put it in writing.
Sure it does in Clause 16, according to the popular defense of the 2nd Amendment in regards to militias. They control the guns. The States are responsible for training. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-16
You are arguing in circles. That is no different that the alleged absolute right, which does not exist. Even the right to life can be denied by the death penalty you no doubt support.
The term militias is argued to apply to private citizens via the 2nd Amendment. And Congress clearly controls the guns for militias.
You forget that the Second Amendment supersedes Clause 16. Not to mention the fact that Clause 16 does not authorize any control over non-militia weapons. Also, if you are going to tie the militia to the right to keep and bear arms, then everyone has the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons. The Second Amendment says otherwise (regarding the "control the guns" part). The Tenth Amendment also says otherwise (regarding control over non-militia guns). Natural rights most definitely exist. The right to self defense for example. The term militia might be applied to private citizens, but it would not be because of the Second Amendment. It would be because "militia" is being defined in a way that includes all citizens. Tying the militia to the right to keep and bear arms means that private citizens have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons. The Second Amendment says otherwise. But even if such control did exist, it would not extend to non-militia weapons.
the arguments they make are laughably pathetic let's look at it this way when you are in the militia and under federal authority, your officers can tell you 1) where to be 2) who to assemble with 3) what uniforms to wear 4) what weapons to carry and what weapons cannot be used the anti gunners pretend that because of that power, the federal government can tell private citizens (not ones serving in a militia under federal control) what weapons they can own. That also means-if they are actually honest (LOL) that the federal government should be able to tell private citizens a) what they can wear b) where they can be c) who they can assemble with
Murder is illegal. So are attempted murder, assault and negligent discharge of a firearm. Those are the limits on the 2nd Amendment.
I would argue that such laws have nothing to do with KEEPING or Bearing. and those are state offenses.
I call them limits the same way that other rights are limited when they cause harm. Like how the 1st Amendment doesn't allow someone to incite violence, or perform human sacrifices as part of a religious ritual. The anti-gunners want limits on the 2nd Amendment. There they are, just like any other right.
I like how some anti gunners justify stupid infringements on the second amendment (ie the government having power where it should not) by claiming since some violations exist, others are proper
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/SCOTUSGUNS.pdf Supreme court rejects intermediate Scrutiny. Game over.
Which has nothing to do with the 2A and the 'right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed'. Point not taken.
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. .. If you say so. LOL. The 2A is my point. But you must not agree. ok
but you disagree with that- you want all sorts of federal infringements. really stupid ones that do nothing to promote public safety
