3 ms·

> The most ridiculous thing I've heard about all week Indeed. The fact that we have to pass State laws to reaffirm rights that are explicitly outlined in the C

by koolba 5y ago

> The most ridiculous thing I've heard about all week Indeed. The fact that we have to pass State laws to reaffirm rights that are explicitly outlined in the Constitution is truly ridiculous.

nr2x 5y ago
Please explain how this harmonizes with the “well regulated” clause of the second amendment.
- koolba 5y ago
  > Please explain how this harmonizes with the “well regulated” clause. The full wording of the 2nd amendment is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The phrase "well regulated" means "well supplied", as in lots of guns and ammo, i.e. ready for battle, It does not mean "lots of government regulations" to restrict the rights of individuals to bear arms. The mention of the militia is an additional reason for the people to bear arms beyond their intrinsic individual right.
  - jfk13 5y ago
    That's an, ahhh, "interesting" reinterpretation of the phrase. I'm sure it's an attractive understanding if it suits your political stance, but I don't see any support for it in the dictionary...
    - koolba 5y ago
      The Supreme Court of the United States agrees[1] with that definition: > Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”). [1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        You originally said "The phrase 'well regulated' means 'well supplied', as in lots of guns and ammo", but your quote says it means "the imposition of proper discipline and training". It doesn't seem like they agree with you? I'd be much more comfortable with gun ownership requiring "proper discipline and training".
        nr2x 5y ago
        Worth pointing out the “minority” in the case represent far more Americans than the court’s “majority” appointed by people who lost the popular vote.
        jfk13 5y ago
        Surely judicial decisions shouldn't be dictated by "the popular vote" anyway. But then, one of the tragedies of modern America is that the Supreme Court seems to have become as much a political entity as a judicial one.
        koolba 5y ago
        > Worth pointing out the “minority” in the case represent far more Americans than the court’s “majority” appointed by people who lost the popular vote. That's neither relevant nor true. The case, D.C. v. Heller[1], was decided 5-4 with Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, representing the majority. Scalia (1986) and Kennedy (1987) were nominated by President Reagan who had won the 1984 election with 58.8% of the vote (v.s. 40.6% for Mondale). Thomas (1991) was nominated by President Bush who had won the 1988 election with 53.4% of the vote (vs. 45.6% for Dukakis). Roberts (2005) and Alito (2005) were nominated by President Bush who had won the 2004 election with 50.7% of the vote (v.s. 48.3% for Kerry). Not some, __all__, of the justices that decided that case were appointed by Presidents who had won both the popular vote and the electoral college. Not that it matters though. A justice appointed by a President who only wins the electoral college is just as much as a justice.
        jfk13 5y ago
jacobolus 5y ago
The “right” for individuals to walk around armed all the time was invented by gun manufacturers and legal activists within the past few generations. That it is now taken as some historical/constitutional standard is due to an incredibly successful propaganda/marketing effort. The constitutional amendment is about a “well-regulated militia”. The purpose was common defense against military invasion, not citizens having intramural shoot-outs.
- calvinmorrison 5y ago
  > The constitutional amendment is about a “well-regulated militia”. The purpose was common defense against military invasion, not citizens having intramural shoot-outs. DC vs Heller disagrees
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- jimbilly22 5y ago
  Nope. This is simply factually incorrect. Take the Pennsylvania constitution, written also in 1776 (by many of the same authors, as we know, as the federal constitution). They also have a "2a" clause. Below: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state" There is simply no other way to interpret it -- the 2a was meant as an individual right to own common-use firearms. Anyone who says otherwise, and is educated on the matter, is lying.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Does the Constitutional right to bear arms on an individual level apply to nuclear, chemical, and biological arms, or is it limited in some capacity not explicitly outlined in the wording of the Second Amendment?
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  I'm in favor of private ownership of all these, the citizen not having committed any violent crime. Otherwise is instituting thought crime. It says "shall not be infringed". I'm not sure how people misinterpret that.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned. The First Amendment has similarly strong wording, but we permit government consequences for certain forms of speech/expression like libel, fraud, screaming in front of someone's house at 3am, etc.
    - vageli 5y ago
      > A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned. This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons edit: To the downvoters, can you explain why?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms. So, shall be infringed in certain scenarios?

by koolba 5y ago

> The most ridiculous thing I've heard about all week Indeed. The fact that we have to pass State laws to reaffirm rights that are explicitly outlined in the Constitution is truly ridiculous.

nr2x 5y ago

Please explain how this harmonizes with the “well regulated” clause of the second amendment.

koolba 5y ago
> Please explain how this harmonizes with the “well regulated” clause. The full wording of the 2nd amendment is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The phrase "well regulated" means "well supplied", as in lots of guns and ammo, i.e. ready for battle, It does not mean "lots of government regulations" to restrict the rights of individuals to bear arms. The mention of the militia is an additional reason for the people to bear arms beyond their intrinsic individual right.
- jfk13 5y ago
  That's an, ahhh, "interesting" reinterpretation of the phrase. I'm sure it's an attractive understanding if it suits your political stance, but I don't see any support for it in the dictionary...
  - koolba 5y ago
    The Supreme Court of the United States agrees[1] with that definition: > Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”). [1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      You originally said "The phrase 'well regulated' means 'well supplied', as in lots of guns and ammo", but your quote says it means "the imposition of proper discipline and training". It doesn't seem like they agree with you? I'd be much more comfortable with gun ownership requiring "proper discipline and training".
      - nr2x 5y ago
        Worth pointing out the “minority” in the case represent far more Americans than the court’s “majority” appointed by people who lost the popular vote.
        jfk13 5y ago
        Surely judicial decisions shouldn't be dictated by "the popular vote" anyway. But then, one of the tragedies of modern America is that the Supreme Court seems to have become as much a political entity as a judicial one.
        koolba 5y ago
        > Worth pointing out the “minority” in the case represent far more Americans than the court’s “majority” appointed by people who lost the popular vote. That's neither relevant nor true. The case, D.C. v. Heller[1], was decided 5-4 with Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, representing the majority. Scalia (1986) and Kennedy (1987) were nominated by President Reagan who had won the 1984 election with 58.8% of the vote (v.s. 40.6% for Mondale). Thomas (1991) was nominated by President Bush who had won the 1988 election with 53.4% of the vote (vs. 45.6% for Dukakis). Roberts (2005) and Alito (2005) were nominated by President Bush who had won the 2004 election with 50.7% of the vote (v.s. 48.3% for Kerry). Not some, __all__, of the justices that decided that case were appointed by Presidents who had won both the popular vote and the electoral college. Not that it matters though. A justice appointed by a President who only wins the electoral college is just as much as a justice.
        jfk13 5y ago

jacobolus 5y ago

The “right” for individuals to walk around armed all the time was invented by gun manufacturers and legal activists within the past few generations. That it is now taken as some historical/constitutional standard is due to an incredibly successful propaganda/marketing effort. The constitutional amendment is about a “well-regulated militia”. The purpose was common defense against military invasion, not citizens having intramural shoot-outs.

calvinmorrison 5y ago
> The constitutional amendment is about a “well-regulated militia”. The purpose was common defense against military invasion, not citizens having intramural shoot-outs. DC vs Heller disagrees
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jimbilly22 5y ago
Nope. This is simply factually incorrect. Take the Pennsylvania constitution, written also in 1776 (by many of the same authors, as we know, as the federal constitution). They also have a "2a" clause. Below: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state" There is simply no other way to interpret it -- the 2a was meant as an individual right to own common-use firearms. Anyone who says otherwise, and is educated on the matter, is lying.

ceejayoz 5y ago

Does the Constitutional right to bear arms on an individual level apply to nuclear, chemical, and biological arms, or is it limited in some capacity not explicitly outlined in the wording of the Second Amendment?

artificialLimbs 5y ago
I'm in favor of private ownership of all these, the citizen not having committed any violent crime. Otherwise is instituting thought crime. It says "shall not be infringed". I'm not sure how people misinterpret that.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned. The First Amendment has similarly strong wording, but we permit government consequences for certain forms of speech/expression like libel, fraud, screaming in front of someone's house at 3am, etc.
  - vageli 5y ago
    > A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned. This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons edit: To the downvoters, can you explain why?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms. So, shall be infringed in certain scenarios?