They Want to Take Your Guns

I never left repealing the 2nd. And again, the fact that the 2nd exists and is liberally (albeit arguably correctly) interpreted is precisely why the courts dismiss any attempt to address the problem. They have no power to repeal the 2nd. As your own quoted text says, But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.

 

Since you obviously have not bothered to read the post any of the times I posted it...

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.

As I said:
You have yet to substantively address this argument.
This has not changed.

 

Good! Get started!

Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games.

This will involve hard work, of course. You can’t just sit online and preen to those who already agree with you. No siree. Instead, you’ll have to go around the states — traveling and preaching until the soles of your shoes are thin as paper. You’ll have to lobby Congress, over and over and over again. You’ll have to make ads and shake hands and twist arms and cut deals and suffer all the slings and arrows that will be thrown in your direction. You’ll have to tell anybody who will listen to you that they need to support you; that if they disagree, they’re childish and beholden to the “gun lobby”; that they don’t care enough about children; that their reverence for the Founders is mistaken; that they have blood on their ******n hands; that they want to own firearms only because their penises are small and they’re not “real men.” And remember, you can’t half-ass it this time. You’re not going out there to tell these people that you want “reform” or that “enough is enough.” You’re going there to solicit their support for removing one of the articles within the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake: It’ll be unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his guns because he’s not as well endowed as he’d like to be. It’ll be tough explaining to suburban families that their established conception of American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of it. But that’s what it’s going to take.

So do it. Start now. Off you go.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...uld-repeal-second-amendment-charles-c-w-cooke

 

BS. Scalia is trying to claim all sorts of things that are simply NOT in the 2nd.

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.


It may not suggest that but it certainly doesn't INCLUDE that

 

I think the remedy your looking for is repealing not the judicial system.

 

Why repeal something that doesn't matter?

"A well regulated militia" is no longer necessary since we DO have a large standing Army now

 

Points you cannot substantively support.

Oh, and speaking of things that are simply NOT in the 2nd...
It says "the right of the people shall not be infringed".
Not "... the right of the militia..."
Not "... the right of the people in the militia..."
Not "...the right of the people to serve in the militia.."
The right of the people.
But, you know this.

 

Again...what IS there is the PREFATORY clause (which explains the need for what follows)

"A well regulated militia being necessary"

 

Oh, I see you're not actually discussing this with me, but with some imagined group of people.

 

They'll never get past George and the others..

 

I have read that some 80% of gunshot wounds are not fatal. I would imagine that the survivability rate would be about the same for stabbings, and severe beatings, where the attacker intends to kill his victim. In fact, if you're trying to kill someone, I would think that in many cases a shooter would shoot and flee, because it's loud, whereas, someone trying to kill you with a golf club might stick around to be sure the job is done.

I realize this is a lot of conjecture, and what-if's.

Point is, what leads you to believe that handguns have been more deadly than other means of assault with intent to kill? Could it be that all handgun violence gets a guaranteed spot in the news? And if ridding our society of LEGAL handguns does not achieve the goal of 'substantially increased safety', then what is the purpose?

And to zoom out a little bit from there: Wouldn't the REAL problem be addressed by disallowing violent people to be at large in our otherwise peaceable society?

 

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[51] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[51]

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

 

Asked and answered, 13 times.
Your declaration that only people in the militia have right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution is simply NOT in the 2nd.

 

One only need to look at counties with strict gun control laws to see the fallacy of that claim

 

Where "dissenting" means "an opinion that is not supported by the holding of the case"...
And thus, meaningless.

 

Oh look... a veiled reference to a post hoc fallacy!

 

Your ignorance of what a prefatory clause is...is duly noted.

And that IS what the 2nd is about...the "well regulated militia"

 

I think we should now allow the 1A to be used to try and strip away other American's rights. Without the 2A you won't have a 1A very long and if you feel the need to strip Americans of their rights, I hope you have the balls to do it yourself but you will want people with guns to kill Americans because you don't like their rights. You are why we have the 2A.

 

It does not matter how many times you put your fingers in your ears and scream "I can't year you,"your "prefatory clause" argument has been discredited, ad nauseam and in toto.

Your declaration that only people in the militia have right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution is simply NOT in the 2nd.

 

If liberals applied their standards for the constitutionally of restrictions on abortions to the right right to arms, there'd be no gun control laws.

 

For me it is because if you give up one ammendment thru judicial overreach then you can give all of them up to judicial overreach. It will just be a matter of time.

 

The more recent ruling of Caetano undermines your argument entirely. In Caetano the united state supreme court ruled that the second amendment protects the ownership and legal use of implements such as stun guns for the purpose of self defense, especially outside of the home since the defendant was homeless at the time of the incident. They did not merely limit their ruling to say that stun guns exclusively were protected, but that the second amendment to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

What you simply do not understand is that it does not matter whether you are correct or incorrect. Your argumentative narrative has been outright rejected by the united states supreme court in at least three of their rulings. Heller, McDonald and now Caetano all repeating the same message. Even if your interpretation is correct, it makes no difference in the matter. The highest legal authority in the united states has stated that you are incorrect, they have rejected your narrative, and nothing is going to change that fact, no matter how many times you keep repeating your rejected narrative.

 

Oh and I had a type o, I meant "not" in place of "now" but think you all got it lol.

 

I disagree with the Court.

Sue me. The fact remains that that prefatory clause is there and the only treatment of it was Scalia's ridiculous claim that it meant nothing.

Caetano was about types of weapons.

 

And then there's Miller v US

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court stated "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable."[186] As the Court explained:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense