Biden is creating a new White House office focused on gun violence prevention

Good thing equal protection stops us from using any of those racialist justifications anymore eh?

You want to change the constitution? You want to do away with it? See ART V

 

You yourself stipulated it extended prima facie to bearable arms.
Don't MAKE ME quote Heller at you RE: Modern vs not modern arms. Seriously.
Don't bitch because you hoisted yourself on your own petard. Have some dignity.

If you want to change the meaning of the 2nd amendment, see Art V.

 

if gun banners say they want to ban certain guns to stop killings-and they guns they choose to ban first are rarely used for killings-that establishes that the stated motivation is bullshit. If people push laws that ONLY or almost always impact those not causing crime-then we can claim honestly that crime control is not the motive of those pushing the laws. And both of these arguments apply to the anti gun agenda of the left. everything they push is evidence that harassing the law abiding is the main goal, if not the only goal

 

I am happy to have you pretend that suitcase nukes and similar weapons are protected by the second because I know there is not a single federal judge or major league legal scholar on the right who agrees with you. I have been consistent about that long before you showed up. The cato institute, the Heritage foundation, Don Kates, David Koppel and every other pro gun scholar is on my side with this. Purists are fun but they tend to almost always lose in the real world. Tell me what is the underlying natural right that the founders were contemplating with enactment of the second?

 

Indeed. Some laws congress have been there for almost a centaury. It proves they can make those laws.

I already debunked this nonsense.

 

Nope. The burden is on those who make the claim.

 

it's Thomas who doesn't care about the constitution, obviously.

And you agree!!

 

Why worry about that part of the constitution when the decision is to follow what we the people have done in the past?

If history is the measure, then it's the measure. If the constitution is the issue, then Thomas needs to resign as the bought and paid for goofball that he is.

 

wrong again, in a free society the burden is always on those who want to restrict freedom.

 

yeah just what we need, another lightweight like Biden's quota queen pick

I'll pass

 

Yes, you don't care what the constitution states AT ALL.

 

well we should play a game-who understands the constitution better. I suspect I will win that one rather easily. Tells us (and perhaps a bit more reading will help you)-what do you think the second amendment means? ball's in your court

 

A collective-right interpretation considers the operative clause as dependent on the prefatory clause of the Amendment and thus an individual ownership right does not exist outside the context of maintaining a well-regulated militia.
Since there is no well regulated militia requiring private gun ownership, the 2nd doesn't address individual ownership.

Thus legislatures have authority to regulate firearms.

 

then deal with this
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3437&context=mlr

Advocates of the individual right position, on the other hand, rely on the fact that the natural reading of the amendment's phrase "right of the people" is that it creates not a state right, but one which individuals can assert. .....
To demonstrate that no individual right was intended, he must show not just that there was a desire to protect the states, but that there was no desire to protect individuals - despite the most natural reading of the amendment's phraseology. As we shall see, this is a particularly difficult burden to bear.

given no founder even hinted that the federal government should have such powers, given that Article one section Eight doesn't even mention gun control powers and given the comments of the founders that individuals were to be armed, your argument completely fails. You have no founders supporting your position, the context of the Bill of rights weighs heavily against you and the entire body of the constitution does as well

 

Oh btw @WillReadmore =even if your incorrect interpretation of the second was accurate that still DOES NOT empower etc federal government to regulate firearms.

 

I'm well aware that you want the entire predicate clause to be ignored - as if the founders didn't even write that part!

And, you missed that the constitution doesn't explicitly name rights that the states have.

 

But, the states do.

 

Trump has stated he wants to do away with the constitution- what amazes me is so many think that would not include the second amendment

 

can you find a single founder who actually denies an individual right
can you find a single founder who advocated that the federal government could interfere with what arms a private citizen could own
states don't have rights-they have powers
fail again

 

yeah they did until they passed the fourteenth amendment and that changed things-admittedly not as fast as they should have. and yes, I think by accident you hit on the real issue-how much of the state powers to interfere with the arms its citizens keep and bear will be burned away by application of the second through incorporation. Because you are correct in the sense that states once had powers that the federal government was never given

 

Sure. Look who wrote and signed the Bill of Rights.

 

States have a right to take action in favor of the security and safety of its population.

 

I did, and I don't see a single comment attributed to any of them that suggests that they thought the new federal government should have any powers over individual citizens acting in their private capacities concerning firearms

can you actually supply some contrary evidence?

 

yep unless it violates the incorporated bill of rights. that is why most of the bill of rights applies to the states such as "Miranda rights" or the Fifth and Fourth amendments. one can make a good argument that warrantless wiretaps or coerced confessions would increase the safety and security of the population. But we prevent that. same with gun control laws that aren't really intended to increase anyone but the safety of despots and criminals

 

When people in this forum make a claim, than they need to prove it.
I haven't seen any proof. I have provided the proof that the opposite is what goes on for almost a centaury.
That makes the claim that was made, utterly not plausible.

I do not recognize your argument why you shouldn't need to prove your point.