4 ms·

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 p

by 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.
- RajT88 3y ago
  You have to have a paid account to read the 1766 version of it, but here you go: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/regulated_adj?tab=meaning_and_use#26231684 https://www.oed.com/dictionary/regulated_adj?tab=meaning_and... But that is besides the point. Do me a favor and read the definition of Militia as writ in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Then give the Second Amendment another read, since that is what it is referring to with the usage of the word "Militia". Then go read the Militia acts of 1792/1795/1862 and finally 1903. It's all really straightforward, and each thing logically follows the next. Miller follows along in that vein. There's nothing revisionist about it; it's all really straightforward. Where things get crooked in the reasoning is literally the Heller decision. Somehow it refers to the first Militia act with the decision referring to "able bodied men", while then concluding that "Militia" in the 2A does not actually mean "Militia". It's pretty bonkers. You seem to be as willing to cherry pick as the conservative SCOTUS majority was in 2008. It's kind of nuts, because what I cited above, actually does already provide for private firearm ownership (with some boundaries around it). It's quite obvious that the reason for the much more convoluted reasoning in Heller is because the conservative majority wanted to greatly expand gun rights, and had to work backward from that goal to something that gave them enough of a fig leaf to ignore the (massive, self-evident) history of Militias and their regulation.
  - RajT88 3y ago
    Now - if I needed more to support my point (which any honest reading would make clear that I don't), you can have a look at the influence the Federalist Society had on the Heller case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society#District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society#District_of... Note the 2 members of the society who voted on Heller, and the extra ones which currently sit on the court. And also note the 2 additional members who have some sympathetic relationship to the group although are not explicitly mentioned as members. That gets you 4/5 of the 5 votes on Heller. 5 sitting SCOTUS as of this writing. QED, Heller was highly partisan and a break from hundreds of years of precedent. You'd be hard pressed to make an honest case otherwise.
    - 3y ago

by RajT88 3y ago

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.

RajT88 3y ago
You have to have a paid account to read the 1766 version of it, but here you go: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/regulated_adj?tab=meaning_and_use#26231684 https://www.oed.com/dictionary/regulated_adj?tab=meaning_and... But that is besides the point. Do me a favor and read the definition of Militia as writ in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Then give the Second Amendment another read, since that is what it is referring to with the usage of the word "Militia". Then go read the Militia acts of 1792/1795/1862 and finally 1903. It's all really straightforward, and each thing logically follows the next. Miller follows along in that vein. There's nothing revisionist about it; it's all really straightforward. Where things get crooked in the reasoning is literally the Heller decision. Somehow it refers to the first Militia act with the decision referring to "able bodied men", while then concluding that "Militia" in the 2A does not actually mean "Militia". It's pretty bonkers. You seem to be as willing to cherry pick as the conservative SCOTUS majority was in 2008. It's kind of nuts, because what I cited above, actually does already provide for private firearm ownership (with some boundaries around it). It's quite obvious that the reason for the much more convoluted reasoning in Heller is because the conservative majority wanted to greatly expand gun rights, and had to work backward from that goal to something that gave them enough of a fig leaf to ignore the (massive, self-evident) history of Militias and their regulation.
- RajT88 3y ago
  Now - if I needed more to support my point (which any honest reading would make clear that I don't), you can have a look at the influence the Federalist Society had on the Heller case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society#District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society#District_of... Note the 2 members of the society who voted on Heller, and the extra ones which currently sit on the court. And also note the 2 additional members who have some sympathetic relationship to the group although are not explicitly mentioned as members. That gets you 4/5 of the 5 votes on Heller. 5 sitting SCOTUS as of this writing. QED, Heller was highly partisan and a break from hundreds of years of precedent. You'd be hard pressed to make an honest case otherwise.
  - 3y ago