4 ms·

First off, you are too late for any comment about the text to hold any water. 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald settled that. It is an individuals right to keep and

First off, you are too late for any comment about the text to hold any water. 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald settled that. It is an individuals right to keep and bear, not collective, never was. One term that came from Heller was “dangerous and unusual”, make note of the and. Next, well regulated never meant lots of regulations. It meant well trained and in good working order. 1800s Oxford dictionary.

comrh 3y ago
The way the Court current works its just settled until the next turn over in court make up.
- jfengel 3y ago
  The court make-up isn't expected to change for decades. The previous President appointed three young members who will be there for a very long time, adding to three existing members. It will be many, many years before the composition of the court is likely to shift significantly.
orwin 3y ago
I'm pro-gun ownership but European. To me you're especially right about that part > It meant well trained and in good working order. In WV, I've seen people who barely knew how to handle hunting rifles, handle semi-automatique rifles. It's terrifying. Any hunter in my country seeing people handle firearms like those two would've reported them to have their license revoked and firearms locked until further training. (not that hunting permit/license are a big thing in the area btw, I think a lot are hunting kinda illegaly, but well, the woods are shared, and some really need basic training. ).
quesera 3y ago
"Settled" does not mean what you think it means. There are good arguments that recent jurisprudence is not even justified from an Originalist perspective. This is neither the time nor place, but your confidence is unfounded.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  You are allowed to be mad at a ruling you cannot change. Just don’t drag me into your feelings. Maybe it is overruled someday, that’s pretty rare. Maybe you can point to another amendment that made it almost 250 before being interpreted to say something, it does not?
  - quesera 3y ago
    I'm not mad at all. I have no feelings on the issue whatsoever, honestly. But you're also wrong if you think there's meaningful precedent. And BTW the entire Bill of Rights is the same age. All are subject to interpretation by the sitting Court. ... FWIW, I would place 2A lowest on my list of important entries in the BoR though. They're all important because if one is threatened then they are all threatened, but I think 2A is probably net-harmful in the current world. If there was an A/B test, with and without, I'd choose without. 2A has transformed from this vaguely self-protective/deterministic right into this bizarro testament to machismo and the absurd idea that carrying makes one safer from fellow humans, and the frankly asinine idea that it's insurance against government overreach. The statistics, and clear thinking, prove otherwise. Are you that guy? Don't be that guy.
    - gottorf 3y ago
      > the frankly asinine idea that it's insurance against government overreach Why is it asinine? It is precisely intended to be the insurance of last resort against a government that turns tyrannical. If your claim is that the might of the US military is so overwhelming that a bunch of rednecks toting AR-15s could be of no match, well, Vietnam and Afghanistan both proved that a determined and armed population is actually quite hard to conquer even for the foremost military power. The presence of "that guy" doesn't invalidate any Constitutional right. Neo-Nazis wanting to march through Skokie is "those guys" taking the 1st Amendment to the absurd. You could say that the Miranda warning arose as a result of "those guys" defense attorneys taking the 5th amendment to the absurd. They are all still rights held by the people.
      - 3y ago
pauldenton 3y ago
[dead]
RajT88 3y ago
In terms of setting precedent, this is accurate. > It is an individuals right to keep and bear, not collective, never was. Prior to 2008 it was. New SCOTUS precedent doesn't magically change the past. > Next, well regulated never meant lots of regulations. It meant well trained and in good working order. 1800s Oxford dictionary. The 1766 definition reads: "Properly controlled, governed, or directed; subject to guidance or regulations." Textualism/Originalism is just cherry picking things like this to justify the decision the majority was going to make anyways, which is why someone sought out just the right definition from just the right source from decades after the drafting of the 2nd amendment. It's weird that they had to resort to this, because you could totally make a convincing case for private firearm ownership based on state militias and how they evolved. There's room for guaranteeing the individual ownership right under the Militia act of 1903 - any male aged 17 to 45 is eligible for "unorganized" state militia service unconnected to the various state-level military branches. That apparently is not their desired outcome, so one presumes this is why they did not pursue this avenue.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  >Prior to 2008 it was. New SCOTUS precedent doesn't magically change the past. It really wasn't. Had Miller not be basically defaulted on by death, but decided anyhow... this would have been clear earlier. Just because you don't like it - never made it any less of an individual right... You know, the second one in the section where all the other individual civil rights are - or was that an organizing mistake on their part? Your definition is very interesting in that it seems to be a clear case of revisionist history, or a complete fabrication. Post a link, please. Because here are quotes using the term, and not one in the 1700/1800s implies regulation as in government regulation [0] [1]. Working properly, in good working order, effective. [0] https://www.oed.com/search/advanced/Quotations?textTermText0=well-regulated&textTermOpt0=QuotText https://www.oed.com/search/advanced/Quotations?textTermText0... [1] https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20lite... But hey.... Keep pushing "collective right" you're wasting your time, not mine. It's moot for my lifetime, and will be my kids problem.
  - 3y ago

comrh 3y ago

The way the Court current works its just settled until the next turn over in court make up.

jfengel 3y ago
The court make-up isn't expected to change for decades. The previous President appointed three young members who will be there for a very long time, adding to three existing members. It will be many, many years before the composition of the court is likely to shift significantly.

orwin 3y ago

I'm pro-gun ownership but European. To me you're especially right about that part > It meant well trained and in good working order. In WV, I've seen people who barely knew how to handle hunting rifles, handle semi-automatique rifles. It's terrifying. Any hunter in my country seeing people handle firearms like those two would've reported them to have their license revoked and firearms locked until further training. (not that hunting permit/license are a big thing in the area btw, I think a lot are hunting kinda illegaly, but well, the woods are shared, and some really need basic training. ).

quesera 3y ago

"Settled" does not mean what you think it means. There are good arguments that recent jurisprudence is not even justified from an Originalist perspective. This is neither the time nor place, but your confidence is unfounded.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
You are allowed to be mad at a ruling you cannot change. Just don’t drag me into your feelings. Maybe it is overruled someday, that’s pretty rare. Maybe you can point to another amendment that made it almost 250 before being interpreted to say something, it does not?
- quesera 3y ago
  I'm not mad at all. I have no feelings on the issue whatsoever, honestly. But you're also wrong if you think there's meaningful precedent. And BTW the entire Bill of Rights is the same age. All are subject to interpretation by the sitting Court. ... FWIW, I would place 2A lowest on my list of important entries in the BoR though. They're all important because if one is threatened then they are all threatened, but I think 2A is probably net-harmful in the current world. If there was an A/B test, with and without, I'd choose without. 2A has transformed from this vaguely self-protective/deterministic right into this bizarro testament to machismo and the absurd idea that carrying makes one safer from fellow humans, and the frankly asinine idea that it's insurance against government overreach. The statistics, and clear thinking, prove otherwise. Are you that guy? Don't be that guy.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > the frankly asinine idea that it's insurance against government overreach Why is it asinine? It is precisely intended to be the insurance of last resort against a government that turns tyrannical. If your claim is that the might of the US military is so overwhelming that a bunch of rednecks toting AR-15s could be of no match, well, Vietnam and Afghanistan both proved that a determined and armed population is actually quite hard to conquer even for the foremost military power. The presence of "that guy" doesn't invalidate any Constitutional right. Neo-Nazis wanting to march through Skokie is "those guys" taking the 1st Amendment to the absurd. You could say that the Miranda warning arose as a result of "those guys" defense attorneys taking the 5th amendment to the absurd. They are all still rights held by the people.
    - 3y ago

pauldenton 3y ago

[dead]

RajT88 3y ago

In terms of setting precedent, this is accurate. > It is an individuals right to keep and bear, not collective, never was. Prior to 2008 it was. New SCOTUS precedent doesn't magically change the past. > Next, well regulated never meant lots of regulations. It meant well trained and in good working order. 1800s Oxford dictionary. The 1766 definition reads: "Properly controlled, governed, or directed; subject to guidance or regulations." Textualism/Originalism is just cherry picking things like this to justify the decision the majority was going to make anyways, which is why someone sought out just the right definition from just the right source from decades after the drafting of the 2nd amendment. It's weird that they had to resort to this, because you could totally make a convincing case for private firearm ownership based on state militias and how they evolved. There's room for guaranteeing the individual ownership right under the Militia act of 1903 - any male aged 17 to 45 is eligible for "unorganized" state militia service unconnected to the various state-level military branches. That apparently is not their desired outcome, so one presumes this is why they did not pursue this avenue.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
>Prior to 2008 it was. New SCOTUS precedent doesn't magically change the past. It really wasn't. Had Miller not be basically defaulted on by death, but decided anyhow... this would have been clear earlier. Just because you don't like it - never made it any less of an individual right... You know, the second one in the section where all the other individual civil rights are - or was that an organizing mistake on their part? Your definition is very interesting in that it seems to be a clear case of revisionist history, or a complete fabrication. Post a link, please. Because here are quotes using the term, and not one in the 1700/1800s implies regulation as in government regulation [0] [1]. Working properly, in good working order, effective. [0] https://www.oed.com/search/advanced/Quotations?textTermText0=well-regulated&textTermOpt0=QuotText https://www.oed.com/search/advanced/Quotations?textTermText0... [1] https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20lite... But hey.... Keep pushing "collective right" you're wasting your time, not mine. It's moot for my lifetime, and will be my kids problem.
- 3y ago