4 ms·

You find it funny because you have a misunderstanding over what the constitution says. It doesn't say that the state has external threats and so needs a militia

You find it funny because you have a misunderstanding over what the constitution says. It doesn't say that the state has external threats and so needs a militia, which is what would be implied by your 'state defending itself' reading. It says a militia is necessary to secure a free State, and so we can't infringe the right to bear arms. That doesn't just mean external threats, and in fact is rooted in the idea that the people are the defense of their community and the holders of their government. That means it's not about the State defending itself, it's about the people defending the free State. The Heller case simply extended the existing individual right to own guns in order to protect their free State to that of protecting your person and home. SCOTUS didn't change the Constitution however they wanted. That's ridiculous. They applied existing law to a situation they were asked to judge.

judge2020 8y ago
My point is that the original intent of the amendment was not for citizens to bear arms for their self-defense. Guns (muskets) at the time were not thought to be used for protection because they were not very accurate and were slow to reload, making them ineffective against intruders. Multiple books and records show that the founding fathers/federalists/etc. only regarded the second amendment in a military context. > The Heller case simply extended the existing individual right to own guns in order to protect their free State to that of protecting your person and home. This is what I am saying is "funny" - While the decision was well-informed and carefully thought out, the SCOTUS did effectively change the constitution by changing what some text meant. It's not different than case law being the biggest precedent for regular legal proceedings. This is more a debate of whether or not the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of those who wrote it. SCOTUS has shown that they think we should adapt to the times and that the United States can progressive deal with issues, and I believe it worked out in a positive manner for the specific 2008 case granting citizens more rights and freedoms.

judge2020 8y ago

My point is that the original intent of the amendment was not for citizens to bear arms for their self-defense. Guns (muskets) at the time were not thought to be used for protection because they were not very accurate and were slow to reload, making them ineffective against intruders. Multiple books and records show that the founding fathers/federalists/etc. only regarded the second amendment in a military context. > The Heller case simply extended the existing individual right to own guns in order to protect their free State to that of protecting your person and home. This is what I am saying is "funny" - While the decision was well-informed and carefully thought out, the SCOTUS did effectively change the constitution by changing what some text meant. It's not different than case law being the biggest precedent for regular legal proceedings. This is more a debate of whether or not the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of those who wrote it. SCOTUS has shown that they think we should adapt to the times and that the United States can progressive deal with issues, and I believe it worked out in a positive manner for the specific 2008 case granting citizens more rights and freedoms.