Should states decide on gun ownership?

Read the writings and the thinking of the ratifiers of the 2ND (the first congress) in 1791.
I can't understand (actually I incredulously understand) why you don't dare to read the writings of the ratifiers of the 2ND in 1791.

Yeah, we're way polarized and there doesn't seem to be any way out of it. The bad guys have won.

 

Why are you interpreting the whole of the 2ND based on the last 13 words of the 2ND? What about the first 15 words? What about the intent of the ratifiers of the 2ND in 1791?

 

Dude, why do ya suppose the ratifiers of the 2ND used both the terms keep and bear Arms? BTW, keep Arms meant to use Arms in other than war and bear Arms meant to use Arms in war. The 2ND dealt with all Arms usages bearing and keeping. In other words, the 2ND wasn't just a militia amendment as you've portrayed. The 2ND was an all Arms usage amendment.

 

The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with The Constitution.

 

This is misinformation.

 

Yes, the COTUS, not the SCOTUs is the supreme law of the land.
The American people can always amend the COTUS.

 

Even liberal gun control law professors have finally admitted that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one.

"There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns."
THE NEW YORK TIMES, A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary, By ADAM LIPTAK, MAY 6, 2007.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html

 

I can read just fine and form my own opinions. I won't use my opinions to back up an argument as fact, though, something that apparently you have no trouble doing.

 

You've never studied the Ninth Amendment and what it means.

As to OP, the 14th Amendment was created to make sure that states also are bound to enforce letter and spirit of the Constitution. That is, states must enforce the Second Amendment.

 

SCOTUS is only valid when aligned with COTUS

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

I didn't think you would. Most Americans are fairly well ignorant of the US Constitution.

 

Yes, but that takes a specific federal license to do that just like it takes a specific federal license to own automatic weapons, etc. It's called a Federal Firearms License and they can be very hard to get, depending on what type of license you are acquiring. If you own a grenade without a FFL, then it is against the law, in both state and federal, including Texas and Florida I might add. Care to guess why?

 

But why do you think that? What I said had nothing to do with the Nineth Amendment.

 

There is plenty of ambiguity within the 2nd amendment and it is not as clear as you might think. We also have the interstate commerce clause and other parts of the Constitution that can "limit" what the 2nd amendment to say and not say, all because of where that comma is placed. Although Plessy and Heller cases gave an individual right, in both opinions, the Supreme Court argued that such a right was not carte blanche.

 

Because at 70+ years engaging with others about the document, most people have no clue about it. Why? Because they are too busy earning a living to take the time to study the document? Because they spend all their free time playing video games? Because efforts have been made to keep the electorate misinformed? Because most people have no clue about the Bill Of Rights? Because most have never heard of The Federalist Papers?

Maybe for some English is not their primary language? There are many reasons for the misinformed public.

When everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts.

 

Again

 

No it can't. A woman who notices who missed per period, aka "that time of the month" may or may not know she is pregnant. If she misses her second period, then she may know she is pregnant and take the pregnancy test, in realistic terms.

BTW, if a woman ovulates and has sex, even 30 minutes after, that pregnancy test has a high false-positive rate, say 50% or greater, depending on the brand. That is why it is best to wait until after the first or second missed period to take such a test.

 

Personally, you don't know as much as you think you know about the 9th amendment. That 9th amendment gives the Constitition its implied powers and the "interpretation" that federal judges, district, appellate, and Supreme Court, the authority, to derive what powers the Constitution has and does not have. it also give enumerated rights"to the people" which is where we have the right to travel, right to privacy, right to marriage, etc.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ix/interps/131

 

You forgot the Presser v Illinois Case which Heller was based from.

 

Apparently you did too, or if it was actually relevant you would have posted the decision or summary.

 

Presser was the second, but most important, Supreme Court case, that concluded an individual right to bear arms. The first, was a year or two before that case. Presser was decided in 1878, long before Heller was decided. As I have said, it was the right decision because Washington DC went too far in denying any ownership for handguns. And that was the whole reason for the decision. That decision, however, if you read Scalia's opinioin, does not mean a carte blanche approach to any firearm either.

 

You'll need to amend the constitution for that.

 

I addressed this already.

Why do YOU act as if "shall not be infringed" does not exist?

 

Whatever the reason, the fact remains:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.