3 ms·

I'm not even sure how someone could support or oppose the second amendment. It really doesn't say much (anything?) about personal gun ownership. What people a

by tdfx 8y ago

I'm not even sure how someone could support or oppose the second amendment. It really doesn't say much (anything?) about personal gun ownership. What people are arguing over is the interpretations through caselaw trying to figure out what this rather ambiguous segment of text was trying to say.

cyphar 8y ago
The Supreme Court first ruled in 2008[1] that the right to personal ownership of guns is a valid reading of the 2nd Amendment (devoid of any military/militia purpose -- a departure from previous Supreme Court decisions). While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment. So, opposing the second amendment is the only way to effectively oppose the rulings related to it (assuming that's what you want to oppose). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
- justin66 8y ago
  It would be more accurate to say advocating for a different interpretation of the second amendment. At times, some do advocate for the repeal of an amendment as well, and in that case the "opposed to x amendment" verbiage seems a bit more appropriate. There have been a few groups calling for constitutional conventions in the past few years and I think there are some examples of this there. I don't think actually repealing the second amendment has ever been a remotely mainstream idea in the United States. > While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment. The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    > The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates. Heller was not a change of mind by the supreme court (it ruled on a different matter to previous rulings -- which had explicitly skirted around the problem of civilian ownership of weapons outside of a military context). However, even if it were a change of mind -- the supreme court changing its rulings is an incredibly rare event because such events question the finality and authority of their decisions. Hence why I said "the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment" -- because waiting for the supreme court to change their mind about it (while technically possible and sometimes the case) is hardly a useful policy position for a political argument.

by tdfx 8y ago

cyphar 8y ago

The Supreme Court first ruled in 2008[1] that the right to personal ownership of guns is a valid reading of the 2nd Amendment (devoid of any military/militia purpose -- a departure from previous Supreme Court decisions). While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment. So, opposing the second amendment is the only way to effectively oppose the rulings related to it (assuming that's what you want to oppose). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

justin66 8y ago
It would be more accurate to say advocating for a different interpretation of the second amendment. At times, some do advocate for the repeal of an amendment as well, and in that case the "opposed to x amendment" verbiage seems a bit more appropriate. There have been a few groups calling for constitutional conventions in the past few years and I think there are some examples of this there. I don't think actually repealing the second amendment has ever been a remotely mainstream idea in the United States. > While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment. The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates.
- cyphar 8y ago
  > The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates. Heller was not a change of mind by the supreme court (it ruled on a different matter to previous rulings -- which had explicitly skirted around the problem of civilian ownership of weapons outside of a military context). However, even if it were a change of mind -- the supreme court changing its rulings is an incredibly rare event because such events question the finality and authority of their decisions. Hence why I said "the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment" -- because waiting for the supreme court to change their mind about it (while technically possible and sometimes the case) is hardly a useful policy position for a political argument.