3 ms·

>Well we could stop ignoring the first half, the "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" part. It's well established by SCOTUS that the 2A cove

by daenz 7y ago

>Well we could stop ignoring the first half, the "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" part. It's well established by SCOTUS that the 2A covers ownership of firearms unconnected to militia use: >District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. >They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

kristopolous 7y ago
Yes, that ruling is crazy. It took billions of dollars, decades of arm twisting, dozens of case attempts, and packing of the supreme court to get that because it's simply not there. It was a crazy long hard won battle to make that sentence mean something it clearly and obviously doesn't. We also can't just blindly defer to all supreme court rulings. They swap their opinions and contradict themselves quite a bit.
- daenz 7y ago
  You may not like the ruling, but it is intellectually dishonest to spread misinformation about something that the highest court in the land has made very clear.
  - kristopolous 7y ago
    It's not intellectually dishonest. Most people know about that ruling already.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      It certinally is. Please take a moment to listen to the decision: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... Consider the future. We can print these. It's only going to get better. Are you going to ban non-DRM'd printers? Printer registration and therefore confiscation? Weapons are the ultimate form of equality. Without them the strong rule the old and weak. It's also the easiest way to tell if you live in a class system.
      - kristopolous 7y ago
        Just because I don't think the second amendment confers either rights or restrictions on individual gun ownership doesn't mean I'm against gun ownership. Also degrees punishment or lack thereof for crimes differing by offender, is the easiest way to determine class, not whether consumers can acquire a specific class of objects.
        jakeogh 7y ago
        That tells you to how well your system of law is functioning. It's rather moot if it's not premised on equal protection. There is nothing more fundamental than preserving life. Whether a person, independent of social class, has the same rights to defend life and property is a hard dependency. The Freedmen are discussed in the audio file I linked above.
        kristopolous 7y ago
        A collective well organized police state backed by public sentiment against someone with a 3D printed gun is no assurance of liberty. I'm not anti gun but it's just salesmen hiding behind a noble sentiment. The only thing the NRA ever bans are generic after market add-ons which make cheap guns work like more expensive ones A technology that reduces the profit margins of gun manufacturers, that's the quickly banned object. People can buy what they want, whatever. The thing I actually don't like is marketers underhandedly trying to sell me things by waving a flag in my face. Then people act like consuming a product somehow counteracts system upheaval, give me a break. Any strategic despot would get the gun owners to work for him through packing and cracking the party support and spin the tyranny as protecting liberty. Many gun owners would need very little convincing that they're "liberty defending foot soldiers". That's how this game plays out.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  The truly crazy ruling was US v Miller [0], the case that is the foundation for essentially all gun regulation from the National Firearms Act onwards. A ruling where only the government presented an argument, because the defendant was in hiding after testifying against the rest of his gang. > It was a crazy long hard won battle to make that sentence mean something it clearly and obviously doesn't. I'd like "shall not be infringed" to have meaning again, thanks. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

by daenz 7y ago

kristopolous 7y ago

Yes, that ruling is crazy. It took billions of dollars, decades of arm twisting, dozens of case attempts, and packing of the supreme court to get that because it's simply not there. It was a crazy long hard won battle to make that sentence mean something it clearly and obviously doesn't. We also can't just blindly defer to all supreme court rulings. They swap their opinions and contradict themselves quite a bit.

daenz 7y ago
You may not like the ruling, but it is intellectually dishonest to spread misinformation about something that the highest court in the land has made very clear.
- kristopolous 7y ago
  It's not intellectually dishonest. Most people know about that ruling already.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    It certinally is. Please take a moment to listen to the decision: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... Consider the future. We can print these. It's only going to get better. Are you going to ban non-DRM'd printers? Printer registration and therefore confiscation? Weapons are the ultimate form of equality. Without them the strong rule the old and weak. It's also the easiest way to tell if you live in a class system.
    - kristopolous 7y ago
      Just because I don't think the second amendment confers either rights or restrictions on individual gun ownership doesn't mean I'm against gun ownership. Also degrees punishment or lack thereof for crimes differing by offender, is the easiest way to determine class, not whether consumers can acquire a specific class of objects.
      - jakeogh 7y ago
        That tells you to how well your system of law is functioning. It's rather moot if it's not premised on equal protection. There is nothing more fundamental than preserving life. Whether a person, independent of social class, has the same rights to defend life and property is a hard dependency. The Freedmen are discussed in the audio file I linked above.
        kristopolous 7y ago
        A collective well organized police state backed by public sentiment against someone with a 3D printed gun is no assurance of liberty. I'm not anti gun but it's just salesmen hiding behind a noble sentiment. The only thing the NRA ever bans are generic after market add-ons which make cheap guns work like more expensive ones A technology that reduces the profit margins of gun manufacturers, that's the quickly banned object. People can buy what they want, whatever. The thing I actually don't like is marketers underhandedly trying to sell me things by waving a flag in my face. Then people act like consuming a product somehow counteracts system upheaval, give me a break. Any strategic despot would get the gun owners to work for him through packing and cracking the party support and spin the tyranny as protecting liberty. Many gun owners would need very little convincing that they're "liberty defending foot soldiers". That's how this game plays out.
DuskStar 7y ago
The truly crazy ruling was US v Miller [0], the case that is the foundation for essentially all gun regulation from the National Firearms Act onwards. A ruling where only the government presented an argument, because the defendant was in hiding after testifying against the rest of his gang. > It was a crazy long hard won battle to make that sentence mean something it clearly and obviously doesn't. I'd like "shall not be infringed" to have meaning again, thanks. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller