The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[Ms. Turquoise]

Especially those who use the deaths of children to push for unnecessary anf ineffective restrictions that will do nothing to protect them.

Especially those who would risk young children being slaughtered in their classrooms rather than change the laws. Or make it so that the NRA can't buy politicians.

 

[Flash]

It is not the job of the SC to redact language in the 2ndA. That requires a 2/3 vote of congress. Neither is it the job of the SC to ignore grammatical rules.

Read the 2ndA, all of it. It does not grant the individual right to parade around the mall with a loaded six-gun.

You are confused and is the one reading language into the Bill of Rights. They read it, did research and came to the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to membership in any organization.

If you disagree being an anti gun nut then fine. That is your prerogative to be an uneducated anti gun nut dumb ass. However, it is not your job to say what it means. It is the job of the Supreme Court granted by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has already established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right the same as the right to free speech and the right of religion.

The only question is how much can the Feds, States and Locals infringe upon that right.

Unfortunately the governments have not been applying the appropriate standard of Strict Scrutiny to gun control laws. They have applied the lesser standards of Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis Review. That is what have given us all these bat shit crazy oppressive gun control laws like in the Communist States like California, New York and cities like Chicago.

Hopefully this case before the Supreme Court now from New York will settle that question for good and require that Strict Scrutiny be used for any gun control law. The fact that the Court took the case and the questions asked in the Oral arguments indicate that the Justices were leaning towards making that ruling. We will see.

After that the Court has shown interest in ruling on a magazine ban. They put that case on hold pending a judgement by a lower court but have shown interest in ruling on it.

We need to stop the goddam crazy Libtards from infringing upon our Constitional rights. All Americans except the stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats would agree with that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Especially those who would risk young children being slaughtered in their classrooms rather than change the laws.

We should make it illegal to slaughter young children. Can we count on your support?

 

[DudleySmith]

Democrats hold the power in America today... they have majority in both houses and the white house... But they can't pass a single gun buying reform bill?... Trump did when he was president.... so what's Joe's problem?....

It is the Federal benches they control that matter the most; judicial fiat counts for more than laws these days. and has since the Civil War.

 

[rupol2000]

Fucking idiot, the 2nd Amendment isn't about weapons, it's about the right to resist the feds. The feds didn't have nuclear warheads back then either. The Fathers simply put a cord in the ass of British pigs and set it on fire, and they flew back to foggy Albion. But Trumpsters and Dems are still in the USA

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Yes. The right of the people.

Again, you are clipping the 2ndA to something shorter than it's complete meaning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again, you are clipping the 2ndA to something shorter than it's complete meaning.

Does it say the right of the people or the right of the militia?
Does it say I have the right to bear arms, only when I'm in the militia?
Does it say I have the right to bear arms, only when the militia decides I do?
Show me how the meaning is less than fully mine.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

See below.
Please demonstrate the argument to be unsound.

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990) :

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Nothing provided above explains why you ignore the prefatory clause and its purpose in the 2ndA. My guess is that like Judge Scalia, you don't understand the function of a prefatory clause. Prove me wrong. Explain the purpose of the prefatory clause in the 2nd.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Nice straw man you have there - did you pick out the clothes yourself?

Does it say the right of the people or the right of the militia?
Does it say I have the right to bear arms, only when I'm in the militia?
Does it say I have the right to bear arms, only when the militia decides I do?
Show me how the meaning is less than fully mine.

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

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Nice straw man you have there - did you pick out the clothes yourself?

Let's just say that I refuse to allow you to pick them. I also refuse to ignore the opening clause in the 2ndA. Why do you ignore it?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Especially those who use the deaths of children to push for unnecessary anf ineffective restrictions that will do nothing to protect them.

Well, stiffer gun laws are certainly not going to eliminate gun violence (or mass shootings) - but they help. Per capita gun violence is lower in California than in Texas, and most other places in the country.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

It was given to accommodate a well-regulated militia.

And yet, specified the right was the people's, not the militia's.

If it was granted purely as individual right, the prefatory clause would not be there.

If it was meant to be limited by the militia, they could have stated that.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You are confused and is the one reading language into the Bill of Rights. They read it, did research and came to the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to membership in any organization.

If you disagree being an anti gun nut then fine. That is your prerogative to be an uneducated anti gun nut dumb ass. However, it is not your job to say what it means. It is the job of the Supreme Court granted by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has already established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right the same as the right to free speech and the right of religion.

The only question is how much can the Feds, States and Locals infringe upon that right.

Unfortunately the governments have not been applying the appropriate standard of Strict Scrutiny to gun control laws. They have applied the lesser standards of Intermediate Scrutiny and Rational Basis Review. That is what have given us all these bat shit crazy oppressive gun control laws like in the Communist States like California, New York and cities like Chicago.

Hopefully this case before the Supreme Court now from New York will settle that question for good and require that Strict Scrutiny be used for any gun control law. The fact that the Court took the case and the questions asked in the Oral arguments indicate that the Justices were leaning towards making that ruling. We will see.

After that the Court has shown interest in ruling on a magazine ban. They put that case on hold pending a judgement by a lower court but have shown interest in ruling on it.

We need to stop the goddam crazy Libtards from infringing upon our Constitional rights. All Americans except the stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats would agree with that.

While the above post attempts some legitimate points, it is overloaded with ad hominem making it a bore to sort through.

The reality is that this is a simple issue. The 2ndA has both an operative clause granting the right of the people to bear arms, and a prefatory clause establishing the reason for that right (a well-regulated militia). I read the whole sentence while you ignore part of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, stiffer gun laws are certainly not going to eliminate gun violence (or mass shootings) - but they help. Per capita gun violence is lower in California than in Texas, and most other places in the country.

Per capita gun violence is lower in California than in Texas,

Are you sure?

Gun death and violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Looks like gun ownership is almost 78% higher in Texas, but the gun murder rate is the same (in 2015).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While the above post attempts some legitimate points, it is overloaded with ad hominem making it a bore to sort through.

The reality is that this is a simple issue. The 2ndA has both an operative clause granting the right of the people to bear arms, and a prefatory clause establishing the reason for that right (a well-regulated militia). I read the whole sentence while you ignore part of it.

and a prefatory clause establishing the reason for that right

A reason which in no way limits that right.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, you are clipping the 2ndA to something shorter than it's complete meaning.

Nope. He's clipping it to what is actually actionable in it. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" doesn't direct the government to do anything, moron.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Nope. He's clipping it to what is actually actionable in it. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" doesn't direct the government to do anything, moron.

So, the government included the prefatory clause but those words have no meaning; they impart no instruction as to the purpose of the 2ndA?

Wow, talk about dense.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

and a prefatory clause establishing the reason for that right

A reason which in no way limits that right.

So, you confess that a well-regulated militia is the reason for granting the right to bear arms? But then, contradict yourself by declaring that the right extends beyond its stated purpose. How fucking dense is that?

I want to clarify that beyond the 2ndA I appreciate a right to bear arms for sport and protection. I just don't accept that it is unabridged to the point of denying reasonable restraint.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Per capita gun violence is lower in California than in Texas,

Are you sure?


View attachment 656782

Gun death and violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Looks like gun ownership is almost 78% higher in Texas, but the gun murder rate is the same (in 2015).

Did you cherry-pick 2015?

I found something completely different in 2022.

Gun Violence by State 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

I will confess that the differences are sometimes fairly small. However, if a little inconvenience in buying/possessing firearms saves lives, we need to at least indulge a rational dialogue on the subject.

 

[bripat9643]

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

It doesn't matter what the reason is. What the law says is that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED.

How would the law change if we accepted your interpretation, the government could infringe on it any way it wanted to?