3 ms·

> Because there is an explicit provision on guns in the constitution. No mention of or allusion to abortion in the constitution. If the US wants to protect abor

> Because there is an explicit provision on guns in the constitution. No mention of or allusion to abortion in the constitution. If the US wants to protect abortion through the constitution, they are free to do so. The US constitution has been amended many times. But that takes an even broader consensus. The constitution is short and vague on many things. People read between the lines. That's just as true of abortion as it if of gun rights. If you read the constitutions as written, there is no right for individuals to have guns. It's very clear, this is for organized militias. If you read the constitution as written most of what the federal government does today isn't allowed, it's all mostly approved by an incredibly wide reading of the commerce clause. The Court is picking and choosing rights. They force Maine to give priority to their religion, they force California/NY/MA to give priority to their gun rights, they force everyone to abandon reproductive rights. That's a choice in how to interpret a very vague document.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
No, its very clear that the right to gun ownership is an individual right: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).
- light_hue_1 4y ago
  You are picking and choosing an out of context citation and twisting what the 2nd amendment means. "Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense." So no. Your quote is not what the 2nd amendment means at all! It is a modern twist reinterpreting it.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    The key question as it pertains to the law isn't the intent, but the meaning of the words (informed by context, intent, etc). It is the meaning of the words written that form the law, and the meaning of the words is clear. The operative clause clearly is not limited to the context of a standing army.
themaninthedark 4y ago
>They force Maine to give priority to their religion, They force Maine to not discriminate against religious schools. Maine can choose to not pay private schools at all or Maine can choose to pay all private schools. Maine is not allowed to say that the local Catholic school is bad but a non religious local school is good. That is, in effect government choosing that religion is bad. > they force California/NY/MA to give priority to their gun rights They force CA/NY/MA to follow the guidelines the court has set around the 2nd amendment. Notably in this case, you can not require someone to prove they have a need to exercise a right. The NY law stated that you had to prove you needed a gun in order to get a license. That is opposite of how a right works. Let's re-frame this as a 1st amendment issue. There is a large amount of misinformation in the world, this is causing civil unrest and issues(i.e. vaccine, elections). When the constitution was written, the founders could not conceive the internet, radio and TV or even large scale printing presses. Therefor, in order for you to publish a book or post a comment on a site that has to possibility of receiving over 200 views, you need to submit an application to your city hall in order to do so. We would call any such law absurd on it's face. >they force everyone to abandon reproductive rights. They are doing the opposite of forcing. They are saying that each state has the ability to decide what rights their citizens have. This is not in conflict with the earlier gun control decision as the 2nd amendment defines the gun rights at the federal level. The supreme court has not found any text that defines reproductive rights at the federal level.

hackinthebochs 4y ago

No, its very clear that the right to gun ownership is an individual right: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).

light_hue_1 4y ago
You are picking and choosing an out of context citation and twisting what the 2nd amendment means. "Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense." So no. Your quote is not what the 2nd amendment means at all! It is a modern twist reinterpreting it.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  The key question as it pertains to the law isn't the intent, but the meaning of the words (informed by context, intent, etc). It is the meaning of the words written that form the law, and the meaning of the words is clear. The operative clause clearly is not limited to the context of a standing army.

themaninthedark 4y ago

>They force Maine to give priority to their religion, They force Maine to not discriminate against religious schools. Maine can choose to not pay private schools at all or Maine can choose to pay all private schools. Maine is not allowed to say that the local Catholic school is bad but a non religious local school is good. That is, in effect government choosing that religion is bad. > they force California/NY/MA to give priority to their gun rights They force CA/NY/MA to follow the guidelines the court has set around the 2nd amendment. Notably in this case, you can not require someone to prove they have a need to exercise a right. The NY law stated that you had to prove you needed a gun in order to get a license. That is opposite of how a right works. Let's re-frame this as a 1st amendment issue. There is a large amount of misinformation in the world, this is causing civil unrest and issues(i.e. vaccine, elections). When the constitution was written, the founders could not conceive the internet, radio and TV or even large scale printing presses. Therefor, in order for you to publish a book or post a comment on a site that has to possibility of receiving over 200 views, you need to submit an application to your city hall in order to do so. We would call any such law absurd on it's face. >they force everyone to abandon reproductive rights. They are doing the opposite of forcing. They are saying that each state has the ability to decide what rights their citizens have. This is not in conflict with the earlier gun control decision as the 2nd amendment defines the gun rights at the federal level. The supreme court has not found any text that defines reproductive rights at the federal level.