4 ms·

> it's clear from reading other writings by the Founding Fathers that the 2nd Amendment was written to allow an individual to own firearms. This is irrelevant,

> it's clear from reading other writings by the Founding Fathers that the 2nd Amendment was written to allow an individual to own firearms. This is irrelevant, it matters what made it into the contract, i.e. Constitution. The second amendment in full is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A well regulated militia is completely dropped from all modern court rulings. Guns can and should be regulated.

dmm 10y ago
The supreme court has ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns and that right cannot be removed by states. If you don't like that get 2/3rds of congress to agree with you and change the constitution.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The supreme court has ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns and that right cannot be removed by states. That's what we discussed. Given what the constitution says, that ruling is BS. The law and supreme courts are politics --not some clean, divine, body that comes with only just rulings. "Liberty and justice for all", for example, if I'm not mistaken, was in there from the beginning, but the courts could not give a rats ass for slavery, segregation, etc, until they were forced to by popular protests. So, that 2/3 of the congress is not much consolation either.
- evgen 10y ago
  The supreme court also ruled that child labor laws were unconstitutional, that collective bargaining was illegal, and that runaway slaves should always be returned to their original owners wherever they were found. Precedent changes, and an activist ruling like Heller that is more political than judicial in its justification is relatively easy to reverse. No need for a constitutional amendment for the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment to no longer be written in invisible ink, just a good case and poof it becomes a collective right the same as it was for the first 175 years or so of US history.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  It's impressive that you read "regulate" as somehow not aligned with "an individuals right to own guns". These are not mutually exclusive, and I personally want people to maintain the right to own guns. What I don't want is semi-automatic rifles and handguns to be available to the population at large and without any regulation whatsoever so that they can easily be incorporated into some lunatics shooting spree. I know this will be unpopular: all semi-automatic handguns and rifles should be outlawed.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- digler999 10y ago
  > and that right cannot be removed by states. but cities like new york somehow removed it.
briHass 10y ago
It's not irrelevant, because it allows you to understand what words like "militia" and "well regulated" meant at the time. They don't mean what a casual reader might think they do. The Supreme Court frequently goes back an looks at other historical records/writings of the time to dig into the real meaning of the words. It really doesn't matter, because as Heller held, the first part of that sentence is the prefatory clause which doesn't limit or expand the scope of the actual, operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
- coldtea 10y ago
  >because as Heller held, the first part of that sentence is the prefatory clause which doesn't limit or expand the scope of the actual, operative clause Which is exactly the inverse of what it should be: the spirit of the law being above and adjusting the "operative" part.
- evgen 10y ago
  The claim that the first clause is prefatory is some seriously contorted motivated reasoning on the part of the majority in the Heller case, and for those who would like to see what real historians think I would direct you to the amicus brief in that case from Rakove et al (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_...)
rsync 10y ago
"This is irrelevant, it matters what made it into the contract, i.e. Constitution." This was a correct and useful stance - and a fruitful ground for debate - prior to 2010. However, what matters now is District of Columbia v. Heller[1] and McDonald v. City of Chicago[2] which "held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states".[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
icelancer 10y ago
Guns already are absurdly heavily regulated. Unless you actually mean banned.

dmm 10y ago

The supreme court has ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns and that right cannot be removed by states. If you don't like that get 2/3rds of congress to agree with you and change the constitution.

coldtea 10y ago
>The supreme court has ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to own guns and that right cannot be removed by states. That's what we discussed. Given what the constitution says, that ruling is BS. The law and supreme courts are politics --not some clean, divine, body that comes with only just rulings. "Liberty and justice for all", for example, if I'm not mistaken, was in there from the beginning, but the courts could not give a rats ass for slavery, segregation, etc, until they were forced to by popular protests. So, that 2/3 of the congress is not much consolation either.
evgen 10y ago
The supreme court also ruled that child labor laws were unconstitutional, that collective bargaining was illegal, and that runaway slaves should always be returned to their original owners wherever they were found. Precedent changes, and an activist ruling like Heller that is more political than judicial in its justification is relatively easy to reverse. No need for a constitutional amendment for the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment to no longer be written in invisible ink, just a good case and poof it becomes a collective right the same as it was for the first 175 years or so of US history.
bluejekyll 10y ago
It's impressive that you read "regulate" as somehow not aligned with "an individuals right to own guns". These are not mutually exclusive, and I personally want people to maintain the right to own guns. What I don't want is semi-automatic rifles and handguns to be available to the population at large and without any regulation whatsoever so that they can easily be incorporated into some lunatics shooting spree. I know this will be unpopular: all semi-automatic handguns and rifles should be outlawed.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
digler999 10y ago
> and that right cannot be removed by states. but cities like new york somehow removed it.

briHass 10y ago

It's not irrelevant, because it allows you to understand what words like "militia" and "well regulated" meant at the time. They don't mean what a casual reader might think they do. The Supreme Court frequently goes back an looks at other historical records/writings of the time to dig into the real meaning of the words. It really doesn't matter, because as Heller held, the first part of that sentence is the prefatory clause which doesn't limit or expand the scope of the actual, operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

coldtea 10y ago
>because as Heller held, the first part of that sentence is the prefatory clause which doesn't limit or expand the scope of the actual, operative clause Which is exactly the inverse of what it should be: the spirit of the law being above and adjusting the "operative" part.
evgen 10y ago
The claim that the first clause is prefatory is some seriously contorted motivated reasoning on the part of the majority in the Heller case, and for those who would like to see what real historians think I would direct you to the amicus brief in that case from Rakove et al (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_...)

rsync 10y ago

"This is irrelevant, it matters what made it into the contract, i.e. Constitution." This was a correct and useful stance - and a fruitful ground for debate - prior to 2010. However, what matters now is District of Columbia v. Heller[1] and McDonald v. City of Chicago[2] which "held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states".[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

icelancer 10y ago

Guns already are absurdly heavily regulated. Unless you actually mean banned.