5 ms·

> There are some debates, however, that the first clause of the second amendment actually is meaningful and not just meaningless flavor text. Nobody says it's

> There are some debates, however, that the first clause of the second amendment actually is meaningful and not just meaningless flavor text. Nobody says it's meaningless, it just doesn't mean what gun control proponents want it to mean, due to (a) a purpose, even a stated one, not being a limit on Constitutional rights; and (b) what the word "militia" means in the text. (a) "The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting." District of Columbia v. Heller. There are numerous rights in the Constitution that are not limited solely to their original or documented purpose. The equal protection clause protects against gender, sex, and sexuality discrimination just as much as it protects against discrimination based on race or condition of former servitude. The First Amendment protects artistic expression and personal speech just as much as it protects political speech. A documented purpose does not limit the applicability of a Constitutional right. (b) It is nearly a century-old precedent that the militia refers to every able-bodied man, not just those in, e.g., the National Guard. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939). That is why "the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence," District of Columbia v. Heller, rather than being created by Congress or a state.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
"District of Columbia v. Heller" was in 2008, and was the first time the Supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment allowed the right to bear arms outside of a well organized militia. In fact, they had 4 chances to to do that in the early 20th century alone, passing on it. It was only with a more conservative court that existed recently that the interpretation that the militia clause of the 2nd amendment was just flavor case became law of the land.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 4y ago
  You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification. I specifically cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's holding that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional as it pertained to possession of a short-barreled shotgun. Importantly, their reasoning was not that the Second Amendment does not protect individual rights, but that such a firearm had no reasonable relationship to contributing to the common defense. It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179. Twenty-first century gun control proponents seem to suggest that it only pertains to those in the National Guard or another milita-like body organized by statue (e.g., the Texas State Guard), but that is simply not the case and never has been.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    > You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification. That is a lot of words for committing an ad hominem. > It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179, not whatever 21st century gun control proponents want it to mean. The Swiss militia was in existence at the time the constitution was written, they knew exactly what they were talking about. And it is exactly what they still have and what we no longer have. Miller is pro-interpretation that the first clause of the 2nd amendment isn't meaningless.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

"District of Columbia v. Heller" was in 2008, and was the first time the Supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment allowed the right to bear arms outside of a well organized militia. In fact, they had 4 chances to to do that in the early 20th century alone, passing on it. It was only with a more conservative court that existed recently that the interpretation that the militia clause of the 2nd amendment was just flavor case became law of the land.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 4y ago
You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification. I specifically cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's holding that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional as it pertained to possession of a short-barreled shotgun. Importantly, their reasoning was not that the Second Amendment does not protect individual rights, but that such a firearm had no reasonable relationship to contributing to the common defense. It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179. Twenty-first century gun control proponents seem to suggest that it only pertains to those in the National Guard or another milita-like body organized by statue (e.g., the Texas State Guard), but that is simply not the case and never has been.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  > You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification. That is a lot of words for committing an ad hominem. > It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179, not whatever 21st century gun control proponents want it to mean. The Swiss militia was in existence at the time the constitution was written, they knew exactly what they were talking about. And it is exactly what they still have and what we no longer have. Miller is pro-interpretation that the first clause of the 2nd amendment isn't meaningless.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]