3 ms·

And yet the reason we have the interpretation of the second amendment we have today comes down to a small panel of people ruling at a particular moment in time.

And yet the reason we have the interpretation of the second amendment we have today comes down to a small panel of people ruling at a particular moment in time. Do you think you could pass an amendment expanding the second amendment had the court ruled more narrowly on it? I don't. It's a thin line of interpretation currently, so we shouldn't pretend that there's overwhelming support for the status quo either. The reason these court challenges happen in the first place has been because large groups of Americans have chosen to try to restrict guns. So let's keep having the conversation until we decide to fix the constitution.

mgarfias 6y ago
just how could the court have ruled more narrowly than 5-4? Maybe Thomas only counts as 3/5 of a vote cuz hes black?
- majormajor 6y ago
  Interpreted the second amendment more narrowly. Think for a second.
  - mgarfias 6y ago
    Yeah, I did. A better ruling would have been on P&I grounds, as Gura had asked the court and Thomas concurred. THAT would have nuked the drug war from orbit, along with every other instance of modern federal over reach. As far as I’m concerned the ruling was stupidly ruled, and very carefully crafted to not upset any apple carts. ETA: reread your statement above, it was very easy for me to misconstrue “narrow” as in the vote tally.
seiferteric 6y ago
Well I am talking about all the bill of rights, not just the 2nd amendment but ya the SC has upheld the 2nd and is incorporated under the 14th. Sometimes I feel like we are getting gaslighted by people wanting to curb the 1st and 2nd amendments by saying they don't mean what they plainly say they mean. > so we shouldn't pretend that there's overwhelming support for the status quo either. I never said there was overwhelming support, I just said that there was a process in place to change if we want to. I don't like underhandedness, if enough people want to "fix" or eliminate the 2A, then someone one ought to propose a new amendment plainly stating as such and see how well that goes.
seany 6y ago
There are _plenty_ of people that would modify the 2nd to make it more expansive, not less. I'd count myself as one of them.
johngalt 6y ago
> Do you think you could pass an amendment expanding the second amendment had the court ruled more narrowly on it? Depends on how narrowly. Overall I would consider an amendment strengthening the 2A more likely than removing the 2A. There are relatively few states with strict gun laws and more constitutional carry states every year.
seiferteric 6y ago
There is one other point I wanted to bring up. The 2A was designed to protect the people/states from the Federal Govt. so it was sort a "check" on Govt. power. So I do find wrong to think that the Judicial Branch of the Federal Govt. can have the power to remove this check unilaterally. This is a bit like if one branch decided another branch of government could be dissolved. Or even if one branch decided to not follow the rules (like a siting Pres. deciding an election is invalid...). Anyway, just saying that I think the only legitimate way to alter/remove the 2A would be for amendment driven by 2/3 states method or _maybe_ through congress since they are supposed to represent the people.

mgarfias 6y ago

just how could the court have ruled more narrowly than 5-4? Maybe Thomas only counts as 3/5 of a vote cuz hes black?

majormajor 6y ago
Interpreted the second amendment more narrowly. Think for a second.
- mgarfias 6y ago
  Yeah, I did. A better ruling would have been on P&I grounds, as Gura had asked the court and Thomas concurred. THAT would have nuked the drug war from orbit, along with every other instance of modern federal over reach. As far as I’m concerned the ruling was stupidly ruled, and very carefully crafted to not upset any apple carts. ETA: reread your statement above, it was very easy for me to misconstrue “narrow” as in the vote tally.

seiferteric 6y ago

Well I am talking about all the bill of rights, not just the 2nd amendment but ya the SC has upheld the 2nd and is incorporated under the 14th. Sometimes I feel like we are getting gaslighted by people wanting to curb the 1st and 2nd amendments by saying they don't mean what they plainly say they mean. > so we shouldn't pretend that there's overwhelming support for the status quo either. I never said there was overwhelming support, I just said that there was a process in place to change if we want to. I don't like underhandedness, if enough people want to "fix" or eliminate the 2A, then someone one ought to propose a new amendment plainly stating as such and see how well that goes.

seany 6y ago

There are _plenty_ of people that would modify the 2nd to make it more expansive, not less. I'd count myself as one of them.

johngalt 6y ago

> Do you think you could pass an amendment expanding the second amendment had the court ruled more narrowly on it? Depends on how narrowly. Overall I would consider an amendment strengthening the 2A more likely than removing the 2A. There are relatively few states with strict gun laws and more constitutional carry states every year.

seiferteric 6y ago

There is one other point I wanted to bring up. The 2A was designed to protect the people/states from the Federal Govt. so it was sort a "check" on Govt. power. So I do find wrong to think that the Judicial Branch of the Federal Govt. can have the power to remove this check unilaterally. This is a bit like if one branch decided another branch of government could be dissolved. Or even if one branch decided to not follow the rules (like a siting Pres. deciding an election is invalid...). Anyway, just saying that I think the only legitimate way to alter/remove the 2A would be for amendment driven by 2/3 states method or _maybe_ through congress since they are supposed to represent the people.