3 ms·

> However in the US it is your constitutional right to bear arms. Only established by the supreme court in 2008. Abortion is a "constitutional right" likewis

> However in the US it is your constitutional right to bear arms. Only established by the supreme court in 2008. Abortion is a "constitutional right" likewise. And the american right see no issues with extreme restrictions. There is no amendment saying either people have an individual right to possess a firearm, nor an individual right to have an abortion. These are inferences. What the second amendment says is that because the US needs defence (given no contemporary standing army), the right to bear arms is necessary in general. An individual right in the time of standing armies is not written anywhere in the constitution and was derived, by interpretation, only in 2008. My point is that what counts as a "constitutional right" is a matter of history, precedent and agreement -- they are conventional not just written in some stone tablet. And it is quite reasonable to contest these conventions.

oh_sigh 7y ago
Were individual gun ownership restrictions or even considerations of restrictions ever done in any manner in colonial America? Not that I've ever heard. Which makes me believe the 2nd amendment was not about individual gun ownership as you say.
- jki275 7y ago
  Yes, colonial British subjects had restrictions on ownership of weapons. They had soldiers quartered in their homes. They had taxes without representation. They had their right of free assembly restricted. They had their religious freedoms restricted. The founding fathers wrote the bill of rights specifically to cover these things that British rule had done to the people who left Britain.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  Some colonial Americans had armed ships. "No standing army" is hard to overemphasize; the defenders of the country were merely good citizens rather than a small class of professional full-time soldiers.
kd5bjo 7y ago
What it actually says is that a militia is necessary to protect a free state. Then and now, “militia” generally refers to those non-professional soldiers that may be called upon in times of great need. This would seem to at least cover everyone subject to the Selective Service Act, which is a large percentage of the male population. There’s also an argument that the 2nd amendment envisages a potential need for the populace to defend themselves from the government, as was considered necessary only a few years prior to its enactment.
rhino369 7y ago
>Only established by the supreme court in 2008. It was established when the Bill of Rights was ratified. The Supreme Court never held that there was no individual right to bear arms. >There is no amendment saying either people have an individual right to possess a firearm, nor an individual right to have an abortion. These are inferences. I'd argue it is the only reasonable interpretation. Interpreting "people" as some sort of collective right is absurd in view of the other uses of "right of the people" in the Bill of Rights, such as the first amendment. Nobody would argue the "right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is limited to some collective right. Or the 4th amendment, certainly, you wouldn't say that is a collective right. And the 10th literally distinguishes between the states and the people. Though I don't agree with it, there is a decent argument that it's an individual right defined in scope in relation to a well-regulated militia. United States v. Miller, the only case before Heller that really discussed the second amendment, seems to take this view. Short barrel Shotgun bans were okay because it wasn't related to a well-regulated milia. But that doesn't imply you have no right to bear arms that are relevant to a milia like handguns and battle rifles.
- Retric 7y ago
  Early precinct was that only the federal government was limited. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html In other words people did not have individual right to bear arms as the states could take it away. Which is perfectly reasonable in this context as a state could decide to limit some weapons to it’s specific state militia, or have some other laws that provided for mutual defense while limiting weapon ownership.
  - dmm 7y ago
    Early precedent was that only the federal govt was limited for all of the bill of rights. For example in 1876 United States v. Cruikshank found that the 1st and 2nd amendments only applied to the federal govt. Over time the supreme court has begun applying the bill of rights to states as well in a process known as Incorporation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...
jki275 7y ago
You should really read Scalia's decision in Heller. Scalia's decision in Heller did not establish the 2nd as an individual right, it carefully explained why it always meant that. Your belief about what the second amendment means and what it was meant to mean when written is incorrect and thoroughly debunked in that decision.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Scalia's decision in Heller did not establish the 2nd as an individual right, it carefully explained why it always meant that. That's what every decision that established a particular interpretation of the Constitution as the official one does, so the “did not establish” part is not only unnecessary, but incorrect.
  - jki275 7y ago
    No, it's exactly correct. The fourteenth amendment has been interpreted to mean all sorts of things that weren't actually in it. That's establishing new rights based on inferences about what maybe was supposed to be but didn't quite make it into the document. The 2nd is a very clear piece of writing. There's no ambiguity about it, and Scalia carefully deconstructs all of the BS that other people have written and tried to make it out to be, in explaining how it has always meant exactly what it said.
75dvtwin 7y ago
@mjburgess I think the debate on abortion is/was on when a life begins. And not, whether a doctor has a right to perform medical procedure, killing a child at request of a mother. To make the comparasing work for the debate on 2nd amendment, I would the suggest, a comparable question should be: Can a person end somebody else's life in an act of self-defense, within the framework of existing legal system? If the answer is 'No', the rest of the debate on 2nd amendment would have to rest on decision for its next argument: This is a completely separate argument made for 2nd amendment: is that it is a deterrent against an unconstitutional tyranny of government. But that discussion, does not have an analog in the abortion argument, at least in my view.
DATACOMMANDER 7y ago
Wow, really? I’m sorry—and I know I’m violating HN rules—but this is just bullshit.

oh_sigh 7y ago

Were individual gun ownership restrictions or even considerations of restrictions ever done in any manner in colonial America? Not that I've ever heard. Which makes me believe the 2nd amendment was not about individual gun ownership as you say.

jki275 7y ago
Yes, colonial British subjects had restrictions on ownership of weapons. They had soldiers quartered in their homes. They had taxes without representation. They had their right of free assembly restricted. They had their religious freedoms restricted. The founding fathers wrote the bill of rights specifically to cover these things that British rule had done to the people who left Britain.
erik_seaberg 7y ago
Some colonial Americans had armed ships. "No standing army" is hard to overemphasize; the defenders of the country were merely good citizens rather than a small class of professional full-time soldiers.

kd5bjo 7y ago

What it actually says is that a militia is necessary to protect a free state. Then and now, “militia” generally refers to those non-professional soldiers that may be called upon in times of great need. This would seem to at least cover everyone subject to the Selective Service Act, which is a large percentage of the male population. There’s also an argument that the 2nd amendment envisages a potential need for the populace to defend themselves from the government, as was considered necessary only a few years prior to its enactment.

rhino369 7y ago

>Only established by the supreme court in 2008. It was established when the Bill of Rights was ratified. The Supreme Court never held that there was no individual right to bear arms. >There is no amendment saying either people have an individual right to possess a firearm, nor an individual right to have an abortion. These are inferences. I'd argue it is the only reasonable interpretation. Interpreting "people" as some sort of collective right is absurd in view of the other uses of "right of the people" in the Bill of Rights, such as the first amendment. Nobody would argue the "right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is limited to some collective right. Or the 4th amendment, certainly, you wouldn't say that is a collective right. And the 10th literally distinguishes between the states and the people. Though I don't agree with it, there is a decent argument that it's an individual right defined in scope in relation to a well-regulated militia. United States v. Miller, the only case before Heller that really discussed the second amendment, seems to take this view. Short barrel Shotgun bans were okay because it wasn't related to a well-regulated milia. But that doesn't imply you have no right to bear arms that are relevant to a milia like handguns and battle rifles.

Retric 7y ago
Early precinct was that only the federal government was limited. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html In other words people did not have individual right to bear arms as the states could take it away. Which is perfectly reasonable in this context as a state could decide to limit some weapons to it’s specific state militia, or have some other laws that provided for mutual defense while limiting weapon ownership.
- dmm 7y ago
  Early precedent was that only the federal govt was limited for all of the bill of rights. For example in 1876 United States v. Cruikshank found that the 1st and 2nd amendments only applied to the federal govt. Over time the supreme court has begun applying the bill of rights to states as well in a process known as Incorporation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

jki275 7y ago

You should really read Scalia's decision in Heller. Scalia's decision in Heller did not establish the 2nd as an individual right, it carefully explained why it always meant that. Your belief about what the second amendment means and what it was meant to mean when written is incorrect and thoroughly debunked in that decision.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Scalia's decision in Heller did not establish the 2nd as an individual right, it carefully explained why it always meant that. That's what every decision that established a particular interpretation of the Constitution as the official one does, so the “did not establish” part is not only unnecessary, but incorrect.
- jki275 7y ago
  No, it's exactly correct. The fourteenth amendment has been interpreted to mean all sorts of things that weren't actually in it. That's establishing new rights based on inferences about what maybe was supposed to be but didn't quite make it into the document. The 2nd is a very clear piece of writing. There's no ambiguity about it, and Scalia carefully deconstructs all of the BS that other people have written and tried to make it out to be, in explaining how it has always meant exactly what it said.

75dvtwin 7y ago

@mjburgess I think the debate on abortion is/was on when a life begins. And not, whether a doctor has a right to perform medical procedure, killing a child at request of a mother. To make the comparasing work for the debate on 2nd amendment, I would the suggest, a comparable question should be: Can a person end somebody else's life in an act of self-defense, within the framework of existing legal system? If the answer is 'No', the rest of the debate on 2nd amendment would have to rest on decision for its next argument: This is a completely separate argument made for 2nd amendment: is that it is a deterrent against an unconstitutional tyranny of government. But that discussion, does not have an analog in the abortion argument, at least in my view.

DATACOMMANDER 7y ago

Wow, really? I’m sorry—and I know I’m violating HN rules—but this is just bullshit.