Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[EvilCat Breath]

Repeal of the second amendment would move cartel operational control of the border to operational control of the country.

 

[Ringtone]

“Most linguists and historians agreed with Stevens’s interpretation, emphasizing that the phrase “bear arms” in 1791 was used most often in a collective, military sense.” ibid

And, also in theory, it’s possible that a future Supreme Court could overturn Heller, abandoning the individual right interpretation and restoring the collective right interpretation.

Nonsense! As the Court showed in Heller, most historians and certainly the bulk of historical understanding and practice tell us that it is necessarily an individual right. You keep telling this lie as I incontrovertibly debunk it.

It's an individual right, and always has been just like the Court unanimously observed in Heller. The 5-to-4 split in the decision was over the issue of regulation, not over the nature of the right. Obviously, if the right were not individually enforceable, the collective right of the Militia would be meaningless and unenforceable against the federal government given that the militias are subject to congressional control as "employed in the Service of the United States" for the purpose of national defense.

The Court held in Heller:

1. 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.​

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.​

​

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.​

​

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.​

​

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.​

​

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion.​

​

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. ​

Be sure to pay especially close attention to the last paragraph in bold. Ain't that a daisy? Let's replay part of that again:

None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's [individual-rights] interpretation. ​

The Court has never held it to be a mere collective right per the Militia.

Also see: Supreme Court Gun-Ban Ruling Buries "Collective Rights" Theory - Competitive Enterprise Institute

 

[2aguy]

You failed. You couldn't answer basic first year geology questions. You are a cut and paste fraud.

Now, piss off.

As are most of the anti-gun fanatics...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You failed. You couldn't answer basic first year geology questions. You are a cut and paste fraud.

Now, piss off.

Says the little child who ran away from a simple challenge. And then tried to LIE about it.

Pathetic.

(Why not be honest once?)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You really are stupid....

Yeah, it's "me".

Gun registration is only desired by fascists like you because you need it before you ban and confiscate guns.....we know this from actual human history......

Is that why cars are registered?

Besides that...you can't explain how gun registration actually does anything against gun crime.

Why are cars registered?

............Canada has registered guns, and their police it didn't help them solve even one crime.....

To be fair Canadians don't spend AS MUCH time killing their children as Americans do, so maybe they don't need as much oversite?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

As are most of the anti-gun fanatics...

Oh shut up! We're talking about something you wouldn't understand. It's unrelated to guns.

 

[westwall]

Says the little child who ran away from a simple challenge. And then tried to LIE about it.

Pathetic.

(Why not be honest once?)

You FAILED the simple challenge. You were so humiliated you changed your name.

How about you be honest for once.

Fraud.

 

[Blues Man]

That's why I put a pool in. So that I could defend my home. I assume evil doers who wish to invade my home and harm my precious family will sneak in the back and drown in the pool.

Americans have a right to self defense....I just chose to do it with a MOAT.

That doesn't work on criminals who can swim

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You FAILED the simple challenge. You were so humiliated you changed your name.

How about you be honest for once.

Fraud.

LOL. Watching you crow about being a wuss and RUNNING AWAY FROM A SIMPLE CHALLENGE is fun!

Look, west, you and I both know what you are (troll) and what your game is. You don't post any technical information, you don't do anything but troll.

It's fun, sure, but kind of boring. It's kind of "losery" of you to be like this ALL the time. Give it a rest, or take my challenge, either way I don't much care what you say.

You see, I've scraped stuff off my shoe that I respect more than I respect you. So, go ahead, play your troll game. But keep in mind I will ALWAYS know where to find the challenge you ran away from.

And from time to time I'll post it again so others can see you for the potemkin structure you are.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That doesn't work on criminals who can swim

That's why I have the car...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bullshit.

Beto does, he said so himself.


This part you got right.

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns.

Guns aren’t going to be ‘banned’; guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated’ – the notion that they are is just another example of rightwing dishonesty and lies.

 

[Blues Man]

That's why I have the car...

you can't run over a criminal that's already in your house or will you use the car to run away?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

you can't run over a criminal that's already in your house or will you use the car to run away?

Well, when I discuss gun crimes with gun advocates I'm always told how many people are killed by cars. So I bought a car.

Now you're telling me I can't use my car to kill an intruder???

Why do you want my family to be victimized?????

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Repeal the second amendment shrugs
Now how are you getting guns from the American subjects?

Wrong.

The OP is not advocating for repealing the Second Amendment.

Even if the Amendment were to be repealed – which no one supports – it doesn’t have anything to do with ‘taking’ guns from Americans.

Until 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not states and local jurisdictions.

During those 219 years no state or local jurisdiction sought to ‘take’ anyone’s guns.

This is yet another reason why good-faith debate concerning the Second Amendment is impossible with the right: the comprehensive ignorance of conservatives about the topic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You DID NOT take my challenge. If you did, then show me the post.

You aren't LYING here are you? You wouldn't LIE would you???

He’s a conservative – so he would be lying.

 

[Ringtone]

“…we agree with Justice Stevens that the Second Amendment, properly understood, is not a legal impediment to the kinds of reasonable gun regulations that form the mainstream of the U.S. gun debate — things like expanded background checks, prohibitions on unreasonably powerful weapons, and limits on possession by especially dangerous persons. In keeping with Heller’s admonition (echoed in McDonald) that gun rights are not absolute, the number and percentage of successful legal challenges claiming a violation of the Second Amendment remains quite low. That low rate of success makes even more sense when one considers that stringent gun regulations are rare, leaving only the most reasonable and popular regulations open to challenge. This is not a target-rich environment for gun rights litigators.” supra

The question, of course, is that however reasonable a firearm regulation might be, how effective is that regulation; does it foment actual public safety, is the perception of public safety sufficient to justify that regulation.

Agree.

On the other hand, as I have noted elsewhere, it's damn odd that you and I seem to only agree on those points for which you can provide clear justification via case law. I know the case law too.

It's when you deviate from the ontological and conceptual order of things, when you deviate from historical understanding and practice, when you deviate from the pertinent decidendi of case law, indeed, when you tout the left's hackneyed and utterly debunked collective-rights theory, claiming that most opinion supposedly supports it, we don't get case law from you.

 

[Hollie]

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns.

Guns aren’t going to be ‘banned’; guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated’ – the notion that they are is just another example of rightwing dishonesty and lies.

No one wants to take anyone's guns?

beto o'rourke hell yes we're gonna take - Bing video

www.bing.com

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

He’s a conservative – so he would be lying.

westwall is a troll. It was funny when they tried to "challenge" me in geology. They found the name of one random formation on the planet earth and then asked how much I knew about it. There are thousands upon thousands of formations in the US alone (and some of them change names across state lines!) and this tool thought he was going to "own" me on the topic by finding a random formation.

It was pathetic to say the least and it showed that westwall doesn't know anything about geology.

Westwall never once said anything technical about the topic (they can't) and when I did they decided that their troll game would be claiming I just googled stuff.

It's sad when people are so shallow and vile. I can see being snarky and brutal on a discussion forum from time to time but to just be a troll for the jollies is stupid.

Which is, of course, on-brand for westwall.

(Watch they'll come back on here claiming they destroyed me again...it's sad)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No one wants to take anyone's guns?

People tend to get really heated when their nation watches multiple school slaughters and does nothing.

Every modest proposal is shot down (pun intended), so obviously some people are going to get more aggressive about their rhetoric.

Which just scares the bejeezlies out of the gun worshippers who run out and buy more guns.

In the end the folks who love their guns so much have to admit that people WILL GET PISSED OFF if their kids are dying just because they went to school. At some point people will get SO PISSED you won't like the response.

Just a pro-tip. Maybe something to help you develop a strategy for the conversation.

To preserve your hobby.

 

[Hollie]

He’s a conservative – so he would be lying.

Aren't you the one complaining about ''hasty generalization falllacies''?