8 ms·

>The whole point is that the government Can Not take away guns, not that they "would not". Inalienable rights preceed government, they are not granted by it. In

>The whole point is that the government Can Not take away guns, not that they "would not". Inalienable rights preceed government, they are not granted by it. In fact, the government is supposed to exist to safe guard them. The National Firearms Act would like to have a word it is unconstitutional on it's face despite what the Supreme Court says. 'Shall not be infringed' hasn't been the law of the land since the 1930's. Maybe we'll get lucky and this conservative supreme court will do one big thing right and declare all federal firearms regulations null and void thus ending this culture war and forcing the politicians to fix actual problems. However, that is highly unlikely.

packetlost 5y ago
> thus ending this culture war and forcing the politicians to fix actual problems You think guns are the core of the culture war? Even if the SCOTUS did make such a ruling, the culture war almost certainly would not end.
- AustinDev 5y ago
  It's been shown that many people would side with democrats on the majority of social issues and vote for them if not for their stance on firearms. If the democrats lost their ability to use that as part of their culture war platform they'd likely gain a ton of people who don't vote or vote R simply to retain their rights.
  - bananabreakfast 5y ago
    This is silly, because Gun laws are a central part of the platform and can't be abandoned. This is like saying if Republicans just dropped anti-immigration from their platform they'd gain a ton of people who don't vote for them because they're Mexican. Any move like this fundamentally alienates the base.
    - oaktrout 5y ago
      What keeps a party's platform from changing? Would former republicans vote democrat if the republican party dropped its anti-immigration stance? Surely not, as there is still abortion, taxes, guns, etc.
    - zepto 5y ago
      It seems highly unlikely to me that many people would switch from D to R if the democrats stopped pursuing gun control. On the other hand I know many people who will hold their nose and vote R only because they don’t want to lose their gun rights.
  - ctrlp 5y ago
    You can't reduce the culture war to gun ownership. The Dems are doing just about everything they can to alienate traditionalists in the U.S., including gun owners. It's not even the most important wedge issue anymore. Rather, gun owners are concerned about defending themselves in a country organized by Democratic party policy. They'll need the guns when the police are defunded, or when the social workers come for their children.
    - germinalphrase 5y ago
      I’m asking genuinely, is this a real fear: “…when the social workers come for their children”.
      - starbase 5y ago
        I don't know about fear, though it's certainly a concern. I have had police and social workers come to my home, and to my child's school, because I let her walk to the park alone. The park was less than 100 meters from my home. In my own childhood--an objectively more dangerous time--I explored an area of over 100 square kilometers, unsupervised and with no means of phoning home, yet suffered no problems more serious than a skinned knee.
      - ctrlp 5y ago
        Well, I can't say they will actually take up arms against social workers but it is a fear. Many parents fear the current trends from parental authority over children to state authority over children. If you don't see that trend, you're not paying attention. There are many parents who feel they have reason to fear home-schooling will be outlawed. There are parents who fear that children are being given instruction or choices at school that parents are not privy to and that would traditionally have required parental consent and might be considered brainwashing by some parents. Some parents fear that the this is the tip of the spear and believe they would do anything to protect their children from being harmed as they conceive of harm.
        germinalphrase 5y ago
        “ There are parents who fear that children are being given instruction or choices at school that parents are not privy to and that would traditionally have required parental consent” Are you referring to sex ed. here?
jvanderbot 5y ago
Genuine legal interpretation question: Why does everyone quote "Shall not be infringed" but ignore "Well-regulated"? If the goal is a "well regulated militia", and therefore gun rights "shall not be infringed", why do we interpret that as "everybody should have largely unfettered access to weapons" rather than "If part of a well-regulated armed force, access to weapons should be allowed during militia activities"? or something similar.
- AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
  Well-regulate here means well armed. So, theoretically, this means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should include all weapons useful to a militia. So machine guns, mines, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, helicopters, etc.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  The US Supreme Court held "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."[1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
  - jvanderbot 5y ago
    Perfect answer. Thanks!
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Separately, "regulate" didn't mean the same thing then as it does today. Think about the phrase "well-regulated". When has modern regulation ever been described as "well"? And what would that even mean? The meaning was intended to be somewhere between well-supplied and well-prepared. Similar to how "regulate interstate commerce" was intended as to encourage and provide-for, not to limit or restrict.
    - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
majormajor 5y ago
When the Supreme Court "ended the culture war" about abortion with Roe did it result in the right wing giving up and deciding to get other things done? Or did it get turned into a core issue for recruiting generations of Republicans to overturn it?

packetlost 5y ago

> thus ending this culture war and forcing the politicians to fix actual problems You think guns are the core of the culture war? Even if the SCOTUS did make such a ruling, the culture war almost certainly would not end.

AustinDev 5y ago
It's been shown that many people would side with democrats on the majority of social issues and vote for them if not for their stance on firearms. If the democrats lost their ability to use that as part of their culture war platform they'd likely gain a ton of people who don't vote or vote R simply to retain their rights.
- bananabreakfast 5y ago
  This is silly, because Gun laws are a central part of the platform and can't be abandoned. This is like saying if Republicans just dropped anti-immigration from their platform they'd gain a ton of people who don't vote for them because they're Mexican. Any move like this fundamentally alienates the base.
  - oaktrout 5y ago
    What keeps a party's platform from changing? Would former republicans vote democrat if the republican party dropped its anti-immigration stance? Surely not, as there is still abortion, taxes, guns, etc.
  - zepto 5y ago
    It seems highly unlikely to me that many people would switch from D to R if the democrats stopped pursuing gun control. On the other hand I know many people who will hold their nose and vote R only because they don’t want to lose their gun rights.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  You can't reduce the culture war to gun ownership. The Dems are doing just about everything they can to alienate traditionalists in the U.S., including gun owners. It's not even the most important wedge issue anymore. Rather, gun owners are concerned about defending themselves in a country organized by Democratic party policy. They'll need the guns when the police are defunded, or when the social workers come for their children.
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    I’m asking genuinely, is this a real fear: “…when the social workers come for their children”.
    - starbase 5y ago
      I don't know about fear, though it's certainly a concern. I have had police and social workers come to my home, and to my child's school, because I let her walk to the park alone. The park was less than 100 meters from my home. In my own childhood--an objectively more dangerous time--I explored an area of over 100 square kilometers, unsupervised and with no means of phoning home, yet suffered no problems more serious than a skinned knee.
    - ctrlp 5y ago
      Well, I can't say they will actually take up arms against social workers but it is a fear. Many parents fear the current trends from parental authority over children to state authority over children. If you don't see that trend, you're not paying attention. There are many parents who feel they have reason to fear home-schooling will be outlawed. There are parents who fear that children are being given instruction or choices at school that parents are not privy to and that would traditionally have required parental consent and might be considered brainwashing by some parents. Some parents fear that the this is the tip of the spear and believe they would do anything to protect their children from being harmed as they conceive of harm.
      - germinalphrase 5y ago
        “ There are parents who fear that children are being given instruction or choices at school that parents are not privy to and that would traditionally have required parental consent” Are you referring to sex ed. here?

jvanderbot 5y ago

Genuine legal interpretation question: Why does everyone quote "Shall not be infringed" but ignore "Well-regulated"? If the goal is a "well regulated militia", and therefore gun rights "shall not be infringed", why do we interpret that as "everybody should have largely unfettered access to weapons" rather than "If part of a well-regulated armed force, access to weapons should be allowed during militia activities"? or something similar.

AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
Well-regulate here means well armed. So, theoretically, this means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should include all weapons useful to a militia. So machine guns, mines, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, helicopters, etc.
pseudalopex 5y ago
The US Supreme Court held "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."[1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
- jvanderbot 5y ago
  Perfect answer. Thanks!
- beerandt 5y ago
  Separately, "regulate" didn't mean the same thing then as it does today. Think about the phrase "well-regulated". When has modern regulation ever been described as "well"? And what would that even mean? The meaning was intended to be somewhere between well-supplied and well-prepared. Similar to how "regulate interstate commerce" was intended as to encourage and provide-for, not to limit or restrict.
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago

majormajor 5y ago

When the Supreme Court "ended the culture war" about abortion with Roe did it result in the right wing giving up and deciding to get other things done? Or did it get turned into a core issue for recruiting generations of Republicans to overturn it?