6 ms·
>active shooter situation I feel like active shooters shouldn't be a situation in a school in the first place.
by ChuckNorris89 3y ago
>active shooter situation
I feel like active shooters shouldn't be a situation in a school in the first place.
- rtkwe 3y agoSure it shouldn't be but it's the America we have and it's constitutionally difficult to do anything about it with the current interpretation of our second amendment in the Supreme Court.
- vuln 3y ago> constitutionally difficult to do anything about it with the current interpretation of our second amendment in the Supreme Court. Could you explain what’s “difficult” about “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?” It appears to be pretty clear cut to me. I’m not sure how anyone can conclude the opposite.
- rtkwe 3y agoDoes the lack of that language in the other amendments mean they're not really protected? There's similar language in the other amendments in the bill of rights, "Congress shall make no laws" in the First Amendment for example, where we have and accept some limitation on those rights. Does the "well regulated militia" clause imply an individual right to bear arms or only that the Federal government can't make laws to disarm recognized militias? Ultimately in the US system it doesn't really matter what you or I think a particular phrase means the only opinion that matters directly is that of the majority of the Supreme Court. Even the current Court's interpretation of 2A accepts there are reasonable restrictions on gun rights they just need to be similar or comparable to restrictions around the founding.
- greedo 3y agoSCOTUS held quite a different view of the 2nd Amendment for many many years until the efforts of the NRA and gunmakers succeeded in altering this in the last 30 years.
- vuln 3y ago> SCOTUS held quite a different view of the 2nd Amendment for many many years Which years specifically before the NRA lobbied for the last 30 years? Anything before 1990? Please be specific.
- greedo 3y agoI'm assuming both that you're arguing in good faith, and that your ability to use search engines must be seriously impaired. So here goes: 1875 - US v Cruikshank. Held that states have the ability to regulate firearms independent of the Federal government. 1939 - US v Miller. Held that the "obvious purpose" of the 2nd Amendment was insuring effective state militias. Specifically insisting that only those guns usable in militia service and held for the purpose of militia service were protected by the Second Amendment. Until DC v Heller in 2008, this was all settled law. Until 1977, the NRA was focused mostly on firearms safety education, recreational shooting/hunting, and marksmanship/sportsmanship. A group of right-wingers took over at the 1977 annual convention and by 1980 was solely focused on expanding the 2nd Amendment and more importantly, financing candidates who would oppose any gun control. Reagan was the first president ever endorsed by the organization, and within a decade the NRA had tremendous influence on the Republican Party. And they funded an incredible amount of legal "scholarship" attempting to shore up the sandy foundations of their 2nd Amendment interpretation.
- codersfocus 3y agoReagan was the one who banned guns in California, and the 2 cases you mention seem irrelevant
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoCould you explain, "a well regulated militia"?
- abenga 3y agoThe constitution was written by flawed humans, flawed humans who came after them and learnt better should be able to change it.
- Brusco_RF 3y agoAnd I feel like cars should never crash and there should be no wars famines or tsunamis. We live in the real world, plan accordingly. Your feelings about it don't matter.
- sixstringtheory 3y agoIf you’re not careful you’re going to convince more parents to send their children to school armed.
- abenga 3y agoSeeing as it is an ongoing phenomenon in only the one country, the fatalism represented by saying it is "the real world" is disappointing.