3 ms·

> Take the right to bear arms as an example. In most other nations, if it exists, this is a right granted by government to the people. In the US this is a right

> Take the right to bear arms as an example. In most other nations, if it exists, this is a right granted by government to the people. In the US this is a right recognized by the constitution to exist despite and outside of government. In the US, the “right to bear arms” is a right to own a weapon as part of a “well-regulated militia”, with the idea that the nation was not originally intended to have a standing army, because it was believed that standing armies were a threat to the security of a “free State”. It goes directly along with the third amendment against the quartering of soldiers in private houses. A maximalist personal right to carry weapons everywhere all the time was invented post facto by gun manufacturers and pro-gun activists in the recent past. Notice that the same pro-gun activists are uninterested in the “well regulated” part, and are generally military enthusiasts uncritical of the most expensive and lethal standing army in the history of the world.

robomartin 7y ago
Well, you are wrong. That is, unless you are a constitutional scholar with powers the supersede those of the US Supreme Court. In "Heller" (2008), as the case is generally known, the US Supreme Court explored the history of the Second Amendment and established that it creates an INDIVIDUAL right not linked to a militia or army. This was confirmed once again by the US Supreme Court in another case in 2010. There's a popular meme that involves cutting-up pieces of the Second Amendment to pull out, as you did, "right to bear arms" and "well-regulated militia" and then, Bob's your uncle, you can't have a gun. Everyone is a constitutional scholar. Well, that's not how it works. While IANAL, I understand that these things are the result of a process of legal challenges and a lot of historical context. This question of the individual right is now very well established with, as far as I can tell, just a few corner cases. Thankfully laws are not interpreted by random people behind keyboards at random locations on the internet. They are the result of years of legal process, challenges and interpretation. The law, as it stands today, says you are wrong. In other words, it is pretty much nonsensical to keep trying to contort the language and claim something exactly opposite what the US Supreme Court concluded in more than one recent review of the matter. Here's a good article on the matter from Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment I have a lot of friends who are very passionate and well informed about this stuff. I've learned quite a bit over the years through conversations with them. For the most part what I have learned is that most people don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the US Constitution, the legal system, how government works and even what their rights actually mean. It's a failure of, at a minimum, our educational system and, at the modern extremes, our inability to prevent the dissemination of false information. That's how you get ideas such as the "assault weapons ban" when any objective observer can easily --within 15 minutes or less-- of looking at the data, conclude that's as dumb as clipping your toe nails to cure cancer. Solutions are only found if we explore reality, not fantasy. In other words, nation-wide gun bans and confiscations are not the realm of reality. Therefore, it is pointless to go on and on about this nonsense. If we want to truly have an effect on gun violence we need to stop focusing on fantasy and face reality, which includes bad guys with guns and mentally disturbed guys with guns. The vast majority, the overwhelming majority of firearm owners would never hurt anyone. They are not the problem.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  Heller was a 5:4 decision made against text, history, and precedent by radical judicial activists. The decision doesn’t stand up to historical or logical scrutiny, and it was accompanied by a very forceful dissent. Justice Scalia’s claim to being guided by “originalism” and “textualism” was shown to be a hypocritical farce by this and similar rulings.
  - robomartin 7y ago
    Ah, OK, so any 5-4 SCOTUS decision is not valid then? How do we decide laws then? Can I ignore the ones I don’t like? And how about McDonald in 2010. See, that’s the problem with gun haters, their solution is to mess with the rights of everyone. Let’s go! Let’s take that approach to everything. No more cars, knives, hammers, medicine, planes, trains, rocks, pressure cookers, chains, pieces of wood, ropes, etc. Let’s ban everything that could ever be used to harm anyone. For that matter, let’s castrate all men to prevent rape too. At some point reason needs to prevail. The problem has nothing to do with the hardware and everything to do with the brain. This is so irrefutable it’s silly.
    - vidarh 7y ago
      You're conflating SCOTUS role as an arbiter of law vs. whether or not their decision is factually correct. A 5-4 decision is binding, but no decision is automatically factually correct just because SCOTUS made it, whether it is unanimous or 5-4.
      - robomartin 7y ago
        > You're conflating SCOTUS role as an arbiter of law Well, that's what they do! How else do we decide then? Do I get to drive 150 miles per hour because I don't think the speed limit laws are factually correct? After all, I am quite capable, I have spent thousands of dollars learning and practicing race car driving and if I am on an absolutely empty road... You can't pick and choose what laws you should obey. We are talking about rights here. The Bill of Rights for that matter. This isn't about where you should cross the street. This is silly. Look, the laws are what they are. If you don't like them, go put your case in front of the SCOTUS and argue your point.

robomartin 7y ago

Well, you are wrong. That is, unless you are a constitutional scholar with powers the supersede those of the US Supreme Court. In "Heller" (2008), as the case is generally known, the US Supreme Court explored the history of the Second Amendment and established that it creates an INDIVIDUAL right not linked to a militia or army. This was confirmed once again by the US Supreme Court in another case in 2010. There's a popular meme that involves cutting-up pieces of the Second Amendment to pull out, as you did, "right to bear arms" and "well-regulated militia" and then, Bob's your uncle, you can't have a gun. Everyone is a constitutional scholar. Well, that's not how it works. While IANAL, I understand that these things are the result of a process of legal challenges and a lot of historical context. This question of the individual right is now very well established with, as far as I can tell, just a few corner cases. Thankfully laws are not interpreted by random people behind keyboards at random locations on the internet. They are the result of years of legal process, challenges and interpretation. The law, as it stands today, says you are wrong. In other words, it is pretty much nonsensical to keep trying to contort the language and claim something exactly opposite what the US Supreme Court concluded in more than one recent review of the matter. Here's a good article on the matter from Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment I have a lot of friends who are very passionate and well informed about this stuff. I've learned quite a bit over the years through conversations with them. For the most part what I have learned is that most people don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the US Constitution, the legal system, how government works and even what their rights actually mean. It's a failure of, at a minimum, our educational system and, at the modern extremes, our inability to prevent the dissemination of false information. That's how you get ideas such as the "assault weapons ban" when any objective observer can easily --within 15 minutes or less-- of looking at the data, conclude that's as dumb as clipping your toe nails to cure cancer. Solutions are only found if we explore reality, not fantasy. In other words, nation-wide gun bans and confiscations are not the realm of reality. Therefore, it is pointless to go on and on about this nonsense. If we want to truly have an effect on gun violence we need to stop focusing on fantasy and face reality, which includes bad guys with guns and mentally disturbed guys with guns. The vast majority, the overwhelming majority of firearm owners would never hurt anyone. They are not the problem.

jacobolus 7y ago
Heller was a 5:4 decision made against text, history, and precedent by radical judicial activists. The decision doesn’t stand up to historical or logical scrutiny, and it was accompanied by a very forceful dissent. Justice Scalia’s claim to being guided by “originalism” and “textualism” was shown to be a hypocritical farce by this and similar rulings.
- robomartin 7y ago
  Ah, OK, so any 5-4 SCOTUS decision is not valid then? How do we decide laws then? Can I ignore the ones I don’t like? And how about McDonald in 2010. See, that’s the problem with gun haters, their solution is to mess with the rights of everyone. Let’s go! Let’s take that approach to everything. No more cars, knives, hammers, medicine, planes, trains, rocks, pressure cookers, chains, pieces of wood, ropes, etc. Let’s ban everything that could ever be used to harm anyone. For that matter, let’s castrate all men to prevent rape too. At some point reason needs to prevail. The problem has nothing to do with the hardware and everything to do with the brain. This is so irrefutable it’s silly.
  - vidarh 7y ago
    You're conflating SCOTUS role as an arbiter of law vs. whether or not their decision is factually correct. A 5-4 decision is binding, but no decision is automatically factually correct just because SCOTUS made it, whether it is unanimous or 5-4.
    - robomartin 7y ago
      > You're conflating SCOTUS role as an arbiter of law Well, that's what they do! How else do we decide then? Do I get to drive 150 miles per hour because I don't think the speed limit laws are factually correct? After all, I am quite capable, I have spent thousands of dollars learning and practicing race car driving and if I am on an absolutely empty road... You can't pick and choose what laws you should obey. We are talking about rights here. The Bill of Rights for that matter. This isn't about where you should cross the street. This is silly. Look, the laws are what they are. If you don't like them, go put your case in front of the SCOTUS and argue your point.