Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

Um...
What "sensible and reasonable regulations" do you think have been upheld by the USSC?
Please be sure to cite the decision and provide the text from same.

 

There is mo evolution, as the USSC has only ever held the 2nd protects an individual right.

Miller is not an example of a court ruling the Second Amendment did not protect an individual's right to own firearms.

There as no shift, as the USSC has only ever held the 2nd protects an individual right.

 

Look, any argument that is about syntax, I'm going to immediately toss it out because that argument has been going on for two centuries and beyond and you are merely continuing with it. So, forget it. I know of another grammarian who will, using perfect logic, grammar of the times, backed up by exhaustive inventories of how the terms were used in the day garnered from many then published papers, books, etc.,, who will destroy your argument but why even go there, there are others on your side, as well. But that's the point, the argument was NEVER settled until Heller.

That is the point and the only point.

THat is NOT the point. Americans have enjoyed private horse ownership through the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries and continue to do so but horses are NOT in the constitution. You are barking up the wrong tree by mentioning it, by assuming a repeal of the second amendment is an effort to take your guns away. This is NOT the point of the OP.

In fact, The authors of The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, including James Madison, argued for ratification of the Constitution without a bill of rights. They thought no list of rights could be complete and that therefore it was best to make no list at all. --- they correctly believed that putting in a bill of rights, many would argue that anything not listed will be claimed as not a right.

This fear was assuaged with the 9th amendment. However, unless it's declared via the doctrine of penumbra by the court, someone could sue arguing it's not a right granted by the constitution, which would, if it were a right meant to be inclusive of what the framers were thinking when they wrote the 9th amendment, it would take a court ruling to clarify it. Common sense would dictate that not everything can be a right via penumbra reasoning, but some things definitely are. As to what, it will take a court ruling. So, the 9th amendment is no substitute for the remainder of the bill of rights. My argument is that if the second amendment were repealed, the right to own firearms would be upheld by the doctrine of the penumbra given the 4th and 9th amendments, which is to assert that my argument for repeal is NOT about banning guns, only a more facilitated atmosphere for gun regulation. Given the number of children killed in America, firearms are the number one cause of death in children, the fact that gun deaths are greater in America than that of other western developed nations, my view is that America is arriving at a place where it no longer deserves a second amendment, we, as a nation, have abused it the right.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/

https://www.science.org/content/art...y-physician-aims-prevent-those-firearm-deaths

AMerica, led by zealots, are wreaking havoc on the nation, guns are out of control and there has to be a solution, and all solutions point to only one conclusion:

Repeal the second amendment, for it has not served America very well.

I think that argument is clear as day.

NOTE, this is not about banning guns, this is about regulation, this is a public safety issue.

 

Your wrong on every point, I'm not going to continue it further. Why? You just repeat yourself and that's not furthering the debate.

I really don't care, my argument is about regulation and the repeal of the second amendment, not the interpretation of the second amendment.

No SCOTUS ruling defined and thus limited state's right to regulate arms before Heller and it's incorporation to the states in 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Before Heller and Mcdonald, states had no problem regulating guns, only since those two rulings. It's because of those rulings have I come to believe the second amendment must be repealed.

And so, it leaves me to conclude the second amendment must be repealed, so that states can continue to regulate arms without zealots and their insanity interferring.with vexatious litigation.

 

Absolute nonsense, the second amendment is here to stay. Not only can we not repeal it, we should not repeal it even if we could. US citizens are not subjects nor should we ever treat ourselves as such. Repealing the second amendment would be opening ourselves up to denial of the basic right of self defense. If you look at deep blue states it’s already a problem. Even defending your own home can land you in court as liberals don’t believe in the right to defend your own property. Which is an absolutely absurd position to take. secondly your entire argument is predicated on the government knowing what’s best. Your own country of Brazil is a stark example of why that is 100 percent not the case. So no thanks. I can promise you to most Americans your argument falls on deaf ears. The last thing we want to do is model ourselves after Europe or former European colonies.

in any case McDonald, Heller, and Bruen have rendered that pipe dream of liberals an impossibility for the next 100 years anyways.

 

In this debate, you chose to argue against (and then for, and then against, and then for...) Noah Webster. Which is not the smartest strategy. Because it makes no difference if Noah Webster is right or wrong. His argument WON. And the anti-federalist version of the 2nd A was voted down.

 

WTF? Of course the text is referring to a military scenario! Ever hear of a literary form called "similes"? The mention of "spurs and helmets" didn't give you a clue?

But if you want to discuss Corpus Linguistics, I'll respond in the appropriate thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-and-bear-arms.586083/page-56#post-1074079128

 

Unnecessary
Ineffective
Unrealistic.
So... no.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

First, this IS the appropriate thread because in this thread YOU introduced the subject.

So now your argument is ANYONE or ANYTHING (even a tree) that possesses a weapon or ANY object with potential use in combat is BEARING ARMS in a military context. It follows any US citizen (or even a tree) possessing spurs, a helmet, or an AR-15 are bearing arms in a military context and are thus protected by the 2A!

LOL. I’m as good at entrapment as the FBI!

I guess your source is not only lying, you don’t believe your own premise you originally posited. Now everything that touches a weapon bears arms in military context and is supported in right to that bearing of arms by the 2A.

Oh, that passage was metaphorical anthropomorphism. Not a simile. Sorry, you seem to be out of your element on several levels. That explains why you aren’t aware a translation of Tolstoy isn’t taught in English Lit. You were cutting too much class.

 

Huh? You're still playing linguistic games from a 200 year later view point. You don't seem to grasp that our laws are formed by judicial opinion not linguistic legerdemain.

 

Looks like you're tap dancing. The example you provided does not say "possess a weapon". It says "bear arms". And the fact that it goes on to mention other military-related items (especially the helmets... unless you think helmets were required in the 18th to ride a bike... or something) is what leaves no doubt that it refers to a military scenario.

Whatever ANYBODY thinks about "bear arms", it implies an action. Since trees can't perform "actions" (other than what is necessary to grow) the text is obviously surrealistic. And you are actually taking it literally. That alone is enough for a good belly laugh!

Don't sweat it! Corpus even provides one example waaay better than yours in which "bear arms" is used in a non-military scenario (if you had read the OP). A sign outside a church that read "Please do not bear arms inside the House of the Lord" Clearly the sign was meant to ask people not to take firearms inside the church in a funny-sounding way. Obviously not a military scenario. And there are a handful of examples like these. But only somebody with a serious humor impediment would fail to rapidly understand that it's sarcasm.

 

I have read the OP. That’s how I know the claim by your source that only a certain number of non military references occur is false. I keep pointing out examples of clearly non military cases that your source omits. Two that specifically reference bearing arms for self defense outside military context.

Yes, the church example by itself invalidates the notion the 2A is related only to militia. And all the others do as well. Essentially your argument is this: because there are many examples of bearing arms in military context, the reference in the 2A is military only.

That is a fallacious argument to begin with. And you support it with a source that outright lied about the actual data used to support that fallacy.

They even omit the reference to bearing arms for self defense in the Articles of Confederation I supplied from your source.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter you think translation of Tolstoy into English makes it English literature. It doesn’t matter that your source lied. It doesn’t matter you don’t know the difference between simile and metaphor. It doesn’t matter how many times you change positions on the matter. It only matters that the Supreme Court understands the subject and ruled accordingly.

If you don’t like it, we will just all claim we are bearing arms metaphorically in a militia and you should have no objection.

 

the only state laws that the second amendment strikes down are those that harass lawful gun ownership

 

Can you provide evidence that AOC didn’t say we need more guns?

 

No one here has done any such thing. Everyone merely points out that the argument that you falsely attribute to Noah Webster is wrong.

Actually it didn't. But that has nothing to do with the argument that you falsely attribute to him.

The version that the Anti-Federalists proposed at the Virginia Ratifying Convention was adopted.

 

I have no interest in AOC. We actually HAVE well regulated militias. I was giving you the opportunity to learn about them on your own. I can school you but I was trying to save you the embarrassment.

I’ll give you one more chance. Can you provide evidence there are no well regulated militias? YOU made a claim. Back it up. We aren’t interested in fallacy.

 

I did nothing but QUOTE him! Are you saying that I "made up" the quote? When desperation turns to slander, that's when you know the other side has run out of arguments.

So... boys and girls... this is what, according to this poster, is what the 2nd A REALLY says

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as possible."
​

If you have seen anything different, according to this poster, you shouldn't believe your lyin' eyes.

 

all the second amendment does is to reiterate that the federal government had no power to regulate or interfere with arms owned by private citizens acting in a private capacity

 

History and Linguistics prove you wrong. However, I think it's clear by now, after having explained this to you countless times and you refusing to even address the topic, that the linguistics and history behind the 2nd A is not something you are familiar with. No need for you to reiterate the fact.

 

legal scholars and the founders prove you wrong. others have completely eviscerated your silly claims that "keep and bear" only means a right that vests in active military duty

 

Oh BTW FIND ME ONE shred of evidence that LINGUISTICS justifies in Article One Section Eight, any federal gun control power

 

All my respect for legal scholars on matters that have to do with the application of the law. But if they contradict historians on matters of history, or linguists on matter of linguistics, the obvious conclusion is that the legal scholar is wrong. Especially when this means ALL historians and linguists of notice. And any self-proclaimed "legal scholar" who THEMSELVES don't know when to defer to the real experts is, by definition, not a legal scholar but a legal quack.

 

I will be happy to as soon as you show ONE linguist who has says that it does.

 

find me a single historian who can establish that the founders thought that the new federal government should have any jurisdiction over the arms of private citizens acting in a private capacity. Can you even find a single historian who can establish that the commerce clause was ever used to justify federal authority over private citizens acting in a private capacity prior to the new deal. Legal scholars are the ones who matter on legal matters and plenty of historians deny your claim. any one who tries to bring linguists to a legal discussion is the real quack