The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

Correct.

Until 2008 the Second Amendment codified a collective right.

An activist Court also ignored the history of the Amendment and the Framers’ original intent:

‘Heller is not bad history because it rules that individuals had the right to bear arms outside of participation in the militia. It is bad history because it viewed the individual right to bear arms as why the amendment was written in the first place; it is bad history in its claim that the Second Amendment protected “only individuals’ liberty to keep and carry arms.” [emphasis added]. With this approach, Scalia shifted the decision from a questionable but defensible answer to the question the court had been asked, to a mischaracterization of the nature of the amendment itself. That mischaracterization, rather than the decision itself, is what makes Heller such bad history.’

Why Heller Is Such Bad History | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

It was, however, the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment – and hence we have an individual right.

Yes, for the time being you have that right.

But then, the only constant in the universe is change.

 

[Orangecat]

I call BS on yours. BFD.

I like that you go into attack mode instead of defense. If you were intelligent enough to compete at an adult level, I'd be entertained.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Ahh, a typo.
Kinda like "whose" and "who's"?
No, that's just ignorance.

Your first two lines are incomplete sentences.

 

[Orangecat]

Your first two lines are incomplete sentences.

"Who's" first two lines?
Truth be told, you're neither intelligent nor witty enough to be interesting.
If you want my guns, come get them. You won't like the outcome.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I like that you go into attack mode instead of defense. If you were intelligent enough to compete at an adult level, I'd be entertained.

If you were intelligent enough to make an argument rather than play school marm in a rapid-fire medium, I might be inclined to find amusement.

 

[Orangecat]

If you were intelligent enough to make an argument rather than play school marm in a rapid-fire medium, I might be inclined to find amusement.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

"Who's" first two lines?
Truth be told, you're neither intelligent nor witty enough to be interesting.
If you want my guns, come get them. You won't like the outcome.

Do you always start and end your arguments with opinion?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

"Who's" first two lines?
Truth be told, you're neither intelligent nor witty enough to be interesting.
If you want my guns, come get them. You won't like the outcome.

Only an arrogant asshole judges whether people are interesting on merit of intellect and wit.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You're exemplifying for me, kid.

I wish I were a kid, kiddo.

 

[Orangecat]

Do you always start and end your arguments with opinion?

I taught you to use question marks, so some good came of your whiny gun rant.

 

[Orangecat]

Only an arrogant asshole judges whether people are interesting on merit of intellect and wit.

As you judge me. Lol.

 

[Orangecat]

I wish I were a kid, kiddo.

Nice response, PeeWee.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

As you judge me. Lol.

No, that to which you replied was done with a minimum of personal affront. I commented on your remark about wit and intelligence without addressing you with as much as a personal pronoun.

 

[Orangecat]

No, that to which you replied was done with a minimum of personal affront. I commented on your remark about wit and intelligence without addressing you with as much as a personal pronoun.

It was a passive/aggressive way of calling me an arrogant asshole. Don't act as if it wasn't.
Give it a rest, kid. No one cares about our bickering or your views on gun control.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I taught you to use question marks, so some good came of your whiny gun rant.

That is a silly charge.

There are many examples of my using question-marks that predate your citing my having missed one.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

It was a passive/aggressive way of calling me an arrogant asshole. Don't act as if it wasn't.
Give it a rest, kid. No one cares about our bickering or your views on gun control.

So then, why do you address it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The U.S. has the 32nd-highest rate of deaths from gun violence in the world: 3.96 deaths per 100,000 people in 2019. That was more than eight
Care to guess who has more lenient gun regulation

You present a post hoc fallacy, not a demonstration of the necessary relationship you claim.
That us, you argue cause and effect; as your proof, you present correlation = causation.
Feel free to try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing provided above explains why you ignore the prefatory clause and its purpose in the 2ndA.

As you did not in any way even try to address the quote I provided, I shall accept your agreement that it is sound.

To your complaint above:
See below.
Please demonstrate the argument to be unsound.
3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

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. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We both know what it says but you choose to ignore the REASON for the 2ndA. It was given to accommodate a well-regulated militia. If

The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd belongs to the people.
Says so right in the text.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia,
The people.
Thus, any reference to "well regulated militia" is irrelevant when discussing who holds the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.

it was granted purely as individual right, the prefatory clause would not be there. But wait, there it is!

The 2nd Amendment does not grant any rights.

 

[Orangecat]

So then, why do you address it?

Just stringing you along.