4 ms·

With the current Supreme Court the literal text of the constitution doesn’t matter. For example, the text of the second amendment is pretty clear that the right

With the current Supreme Court the literal text of the constitution doesn’t matter. For example, the text of the second amendment is pretty clear that the right to bear arms is in the pursuit of a well regulated militia. Our militia has since been regulated into the national guard. The second amendment is nothing more than a constitutional right to enlist in the national guard, but it’s used to promote/codify extreme ideologies.

wollsmoth 4y ago
Well, that may be clear to you. I don't think either of us are constitutional scholars but I think if we really want some meaningful gun control we should replace the 2nd amendment with something clearer.
Clubber 4y ago
>Our militia has since been regulated into the national guard. The national guard is controlled by the government, it's not a militia. The last 20+ years or so it's pretty much regular army. Along a similar line, do you think a free press would be free if the government was the one who decided who was press and who wasn't?
monocasa 4y ago
I say this as a lefty: the US defines the militia as essientially including every able bodied man. Since it was written before the 14th amendment, it probably would be interpreted now as every adult. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 In fact the first weapon ban to hit SCOTUS, US v Miller, hinged on the fact that sawed off shotguns had no military application, which was legal basis allowing them to be banned. The court at the time considered bans of military weapons unconstitutional.
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
> The second amendment is nothing more than a constitutional right to enlist in the national guard, but it’s used to promote/codify extreme ideologies. A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to a healthy diet, the right of the people to grow and eat food, shall not be infringed. Who has the right to grow and eat food? A) The people (with no other condition) B) The people (after a waiting period and background check) C) A well balanced breakfast D) A healthy diet E) The police
- wollsmoth 4y ago
  Yeah, this is more or less my understanding of it as well. I assume you're pointing at A. I can't speak to the intent because I'm not a history/law guy.
- chmod600 4y ago
  Another form I've seen is: "A well-educated electorate, being necessary for the endurance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Clearly you couldn't expect the right to keep and read books to only apply to the well-educated electorate.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Is there a reason your poll has no options similar to "people that [will] eat breakfast [with the food they grow]"?
chmod600 4y ago
This argument comes up a lot, but clearly there's some textual basis. To pretend there isn't is to just put your head in the sand.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
You are wrong about the Second Amendment. It clearly states the rights for both militias AND individuals, it's not hard to suss out if you know anything about the period in which it was written.
Levitz 4y ago
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" sounds like it's referring to exclusively a militia to you? Preposterous.

wollsmoth 4y ago

Well, that may be clear to you. I don't think either of us are constitutional scholars but I think if we really want some meaningful gun control we should replace the 2nd amendment with something clearer.

Clubber 4y ago

>Our militia has since been regulated into the national guard. The national guard is controlled by the government, it's not a militia. The last 20+ years or so it's pretty much regular army. Along a similar line, do you think a free press would be free if the government was the one who decided who was press and who wasn't?

monocasa 4y ago

I say this as a lefty: the US defines the militia as essientially including every able bodied man. Since it was written before the 14th amendment, it probably would be interpreted now as every adult. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 In fact the first weapon ban to hit SCOTUS, US v Miller, hinged on the fact that sawed off shotguns had no military application, which was legal basis allowing them to be banned. The court at the time considered bans of military weapons unconstitutional.

tick_tock_tick 4y ago

> The second amendment is nothing more than a constitutional right to enlist in the national guard, but it’s used to promote/codify extreme ideologies. A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to a healthy diet, the right of the people to grow and eat food, shall not be infringed. Who has the right to grow and eat food? A) The people (with no other condition) B) The people (after a waiting period and background check) C) A well balanced breakfast D) A healthy diet E) The police

wollsmoth 4y ago
Yeah, this is more or less my understanding of it as well. I assume you're pointing at A. I can't speak to the intent because I'm not a history/law guy.
chmod600 4y ago
Another form I've seen is: "A well-educated electorate, being necessary for the endurance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Clearly you couldn't expect the right to keep and read books to only apply to the well-educated electorate.
Dylan16807 4y ago
Is there a reason your poll has no options similar to "people that [will] eat breakfast [with the food they grow]"?

chmod600 4y ago

This argument comes up a lot, but clearly there's some textual basis. To pretend there isn't is to just put your head in the sand.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

You are wrong about the Second Amendment. It clearly states the rights for both militias AND individuals, it's not hard to suss out if you know anything about the period in which it was written.

Levitz 4y ago

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" sounds like it's referring to exclusively a militia to you? Preposterous.