3 ms·

>2A is absolutely not about individual rights. No Founder ever talked about it in this way. It's about militias. Absolutely untrue. "No free man shall ever be

>2A is absolutely not about individual rights. No Founder ever talked about it in this way. It's about militias. Absolutely untrue. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 I don't need to refute it any further with additional quotes., it's a ridiculous statement. Furthermore the mentioning of the recent Heller case in the Supreme Court is not an appeal to authority. Read the majority and minority opinions, they are comprehensive in every argument for and against the individual/collective interpretation of the right and arguments for your position are handled expertly by the majority.

camgunz 7y ago
I don't see TJ talking about 2A there. Edit: Thought I would reply to your Heller stuff too. It's an appeal to authority because it's selective. The precedent when the Court decided Heller was set by Miller [1], which reads at the outset (emphasis mine): > The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. If you're gonna invoke the Court, you have to invoke the whole thing. And to that end, there's a long history of the Court backing up the individual's right to bear arms under some pretty dubious logic. All of which is to say the Court is and always has been a political institution. No Justice since John Marshall has ever known what the Founders thought, because they weren't them. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to get one over on you. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
- jboggan 7y ago
  I guess you're right. Now, what to do about the 400 million or so weapons in private hands? Should the National Guards of each state get those since they are the rightful militia?
  - camgunz 7y ago
    Nah I think the gun debate is nuanced. I fully understand the need to defend yourself against wildlife in rural areas, for example. But that's different than dense urban areas, or maybe some dense urban areas would be fine because they don't have serious gang or mental health issues. The debate's supercharged, mostly for good reasons (mass shootings are very high stakes). But the rhetoric around subjugating the people by confiscating their weapons is overheated. America has the chance to show that there's an alternative to completely outlawing firearms that adequately accommodates all lifestyles in our country. But we have to be reasonable and not jump down bonkers rabbit holes like "owning a gun is immoral and makes you an ignorant, self-serving hick", or "AOC wants to personally confiscate your gun and slap you". That's why I think Heller did so much damage. Cities like Chicago and DC were enacting handgun bans to try and cope with escalating gun violence. They weren't mounting an assault on 2A. Leaving policy decisions like this to local and State governments is exactly what the Bill of Rights was meant to do. This way a state like Oregon can say, "there's mountain lions here, you might need a gun", or Indiana can say, "we have deer hunting, so you can have a hunting rifle in season and keep it locked up at some repo off season", or Chicago can say, "you can't have a gun here, violence is out of control". But Heller robbed us of a core policymaking tool. Actually it's pretty ironic that an originalist like Scalia dismantled a policymaking tool that the Founders themselves wrote into the Constitution. But whatever! We can overturn Heller and get it back I guess, in like 40 years or something. PS. I'm 50/50 on handgun bans. The danger is that it's just another way to lock up young men of color, so I think anyone adopting them needs a mitigation that isn't felony or incarceration.

camgunz 7y ago

I don't see TJ talking about 2A there. Edit: Thought I would reply to your Heller stuff too. It's an appeal to authority because it's selective. The precedent when the Court decided Heller was set by Miller [1], which reads at the outset (emphasis mine): > The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. If you're gonna invoke the Court, you have to invoke the whole thing. And to that end, there's a long history of the Court backing up the individual's right to bear arms under some pretty dubious logic. All of which is to say the Court is and always has been a political institution. No Justice since John Marshall has ever known what the Founders thought, because they weren't them. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to get one over on you. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

jboggan 7y ago
I guess you're right. Now, what to do about the 400 million or so weapons in private hands? Should the National Guards of each state get those since they are the rightful militia?
- camgunz 7y ago
  Nah I think the gun debate is nuanced. I fully understand the need to defend yourself against wildlife in rural areas, for example. But that's different than dense urban areas, or maybe some dense urban areas would be fine because they don't have serious gang or mental health issues. The debate's supercharged, mostly for good reasons (mass shootings are very high stakes). But the rhetoric around subjugating the people by confiscating their weapons is overheated. America has the chance to show that there's an alternative to completely outlawing firearms that adequately accommodates all lifestyles in our country. But we have to be reasonable and not jump down bonkers rabbit holes like "owning a gun is immoral and makes you an ignorant, self-serving hick", or "AOC wants to personally confiscate your gun and slap you". That's why I think Heller did so much damage. Cities like Chicago and DC were enacting handgun bans to try and cope with escalating gun violence. They weren't mounting an assault on 2A. Leaving policy decisions like this to local and State governments is exactly what the Bill of Rights was meant to do. This way a state like Oregon can say, "there's mountain lions here, you might need a gun", or Indiana can say, "we have deer hunting, so you can have a hunting rifle in season and keep it locked up at some repo off season", or Chicago can say, "you can't have a gun here, violence is out of control". But Heller robbed us of a core policymaking tool. Actually it's pretty ironic that an originalist like Scalia dismantled a policymaking tool that the Founders themselves wrote into the Constitution. But whatever! We can overturn Heller and get it back I guess, in like 40 years or something. PS. I'm 50/50 on handgun bans. The danger is that it's just another way to lock up young men of color, so I think anyone adopting them needs a mitigation that isn't felony or incarceration.