2 ms·

The "logic" is "shall not be infringed". The Founders wrote it into the Constitution; the Supreme Court decided that their (extremely dubious) wording means wha

The "logic" is "shall not be infringed". The Founders wrote it into the Constitution; the Supreme Court decided that their (extremely dubious) wording means what the NRA wants it to mean. A large percentage of Americans believe that the slightest crack in "shall not be infringed" will open up the door to a complete ban. So you can't be registered; you can't be made to take a test; you can't be inspected. And they believe that if there is any restriction at all, all of the bad guys will have guns, and they will be at the mercy of a vast crime wave. I consider this reasoning absurd. And so do a majority of Americans, according to numerous polls. But the way the law is written, it's practically impossible to change.

throw0101d 2y ago
> The Founders wrote it into the Constitution; the Supreme Court decided that their (extremely dubious) wording means what the NRA wants it to mean. A 2000 law review article on the topic found that between 1887 (when things were first indexed) until 1960, all references were towards a collective right (i.e., in a militia, akin to the current National Guard): * https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/2/ https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/2... The 1960 article that first mentions it states: > The majority of the jurisdictions have concluded that both the United States Constitution and the various state constitutions, having a similar provision relating to the right to bear arms, refer to the militia as a whole composed and regulated by the state as it desires. The individual does not have the right to own or bear individual arms, such being a privilege not a right. * https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol2/iss2/6/ https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol2/iss2/6/ So the first mention of an individual right states that that is not how it is interpreted (the author argues for a dual-right, collective and individual). In 1992: > Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger argues that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated; such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. * https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99 https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-a... Burger in a 1991 PBS interview: > This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word ‘fraud’ – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. If the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well-regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18, or any other age, persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfQpGk7KKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfQpGk7KKw * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger (Burger was nominated by Nixon.)

throw0101d 2y ago

> The Founders wrote it into the Constitution; the Supreme Court decided that their (extremely dubious) wording means what the NRA wants it to mean. A 2000 law review article on the topic found that between 1887 (when things were first indexed) until 1960, all references were towards a collective right (i.e., in a militia, akin to the current National Guard): * https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/2/ https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/2... The 1960 article that first mentions it states: > The majority of the jurisdictions have concluded that both the United States Constitution and the various state constitutions, having a similar provision relating to the right to bear arms, refer to the militia as a whole composed and regulated by the state as it desires. The individual does not have the right to own or bear individual arms, such being a privilege not a right. * https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol2/iss2/6/ https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol2/iss2/6/ So the first mention of an individual right states that that is not how it is interpreted (the author argues for a dual-right, collective and individual). In 1992: > Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger argues that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated; such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. * https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99 https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-a... Burger in a 1991 PBS interview: > This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word ‘fraud’ – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. If the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well-regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18, or any other age, persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfQpGk7KKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfQpGk7KKw * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger (Burger was nominated by Nixon.)