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

wow, talk about trying to ignore the obvious. Until you can find someone other than a judge who has claimed that the government has any such power, than all the mental masturbation over the second is moot as to the federal government. Can you find a linguist who claims that the second did not also include an individual right

As I recall you never ever attempted to even address this point from a seminal legal scholar Don Kates in the prestigious U o of Michigan law review
To demonstrate that no in- dividual 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.

 

Show me any that has said that they did.

Making arguments that you make up YOURSELF, and nobody else has argued is a complete waste of time. But I understand why you do it: because you can't respond to the REAL arguments that experts DO make. I have been trying to explain to you what those arguments are for at least a year, and you STILL make up nonsense like the above. So I doubt you even understand what their arguments are. Much less respond to them. Being so, this would be one huge waste of time.

 

OMG the irony is Mesabi range stuff.

You just make stuff up and pretend people who don't matter at all matter.

Answer this-is there any language in the constitution itself that properly delegates a gun control power to the federal government over private citizens acting in a private capacity?

 

I don't know. Can you? Linguists (from a professional standpoint) couldn't care less if it includes an individual right or not.

 

I am still waiting for the answer to this:

 

No idea. I only know that the 2nd A doesn't grant or restrict, affirm or negate, confer or deny,... or in any way ADDRESS a right to own firearms.

I guess some right-wingers might say that there is if the private citizen is a pregnant woman and the private capacity involves seeking to perform an abortion using it in some way. The way they control medication intended to end a pregnancy before 10 weeks. But you'd have to ask them how they arrived at that conclusion. I wouldn't know.

 

wait a minute, you want us to believe you are some sort of uber-scholar on the second amendment and even brag that you would have beaten Scalia on a debate over history despite the fact he was FIRST in his Class at Georgetown with a SUMMA CUM LAUDE degree in HISTORY and yet you pretend you have no clue if the federal government has the proper power to regulate privately owned firearms

I call bullshit on that. I know for a fact that your posts really don't understand the second amendment and since you have run away from Kates's rather pointed argument, I knew you had nothing to back up your specious claim. Clowns like Baron are second rate scholars btw. You also demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the abortion issue and the federalism concerns of state power (there was no right to abortion to incorporate through the fourteenth)and trying to raise that is both specious and a red herring

 

He's knows he's wrong, so you won't get to to address something which proves it -- and the more you try, the more he'll troll you.

 

Nope! Just somebody who reads and understands and repeats the arguments of uber-scholars in History and Linguistics.

But it does kinda make me blush that you confused me with one.

 

yet you ignore the scholars who count

and I don't believe for a second you have not looked into the Article One Section Eight issue

here's the deal, the second amendment only matters due to incorporation. If the constitution was properly construed, there would be no federal gun control at all

 

I nuke the trolling not to convince the trollers but perhaps to educate the few people who might be undecided. I've been doing this since HS (Nixon was the president then)

 

You also misrepresented that quote as being about the Second Amendment when it was actually about the Bill of Rights.

No. Just that you misrepresent what the quote is talking about.

No one will ever see anything different.

"That a well-regulated militia . . . is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state" is what became the first part of the Second Amendment.

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms" is what became the second part of the Second Amendment.

History backs him up 100%.

Linguistics is irrelevant.

He is well aware of the history behind the Second Amendment.

Who cares about the linguistics? Certainly not me.

Bogus conclusion. But it is true that Scalia did make one error.

He was in error to not say that the Second Amendment includes the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

Listening to the real experts leads to everyone having grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

If you want to see everyone armed with grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, good for you.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from infringement.

 

For the longest time I have been inviting anybody to show counter arguments by linguists or historians.

Issue? I have no issue with the Government collecting taxes to pay for national "defence" (sic)

Well, we finally agree on one thing. That the 2nd A doesn't matter.

 

Then we can't communicate.

 

People have given you lots of historical counterarguments.

While it is true that it would be unnecessary federally if the Tenth Amendment were being upheld, currently the Tenth Amendment is not being upheld.

The Second Amendment is also vital for protecting people against abuses by state and local governments.

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

Don’t know if you have seen this

 

not at the federal level IF the tenth amendment was enforced because if that were true, any federal gun control would be struck down on tenth amendment grounds before a second amendment challenge was needed.

 

exactly, its the incorporation issue that is most important. Just like the first and fourth amendments

 

a propaganda piece written by a Clinton toady and which ignores the tenth amendment issue completely. Like most gun control propaganda, that clown pretends that since the founders did not intend to interfere with state gun control as a state police power, that proves they didn't think there should be a unfettered right at the federal level. In reality, gun control-like many other things-were seen by the founders to be a completely state issue and never gave the federal government any such power

 

I've reviewed it before. I recall that the article was chock full of lies.

 

Look at the background of the guy who wrote it-a CLINTON Speech writer. a paid toady of the Democrat disinformation corps. His main premise is that the founders had powers that they didn't have and that they ignored state police powers. They had no say in that.

 

The left only started pushing the collectivist lie when FDR took office. That was not two centuries ago. And the collectivist lie has never been taken seriously.

The only reason for repealing the Second Amendment is to be able to do something that the Second Amendment would otherwise prohibit.

But it doesn't matter what the motive is for abolishing our freedom. The American people say no.

Exactly. Which is why no one buys this BS claim that it will be an adequate substitute for the Second Amendment.

And as noted above, no one is going to fall for that BS argument.

The only reason for repealing the Second Amendment is to be able to do something that the Second Amendment would otherwise prohibit.

But it doesn't matter what the motive is for abolishing our freedom. The American people say no.

Nonsense. Guns are not the cause of murders. Murderers are the cause of murders.

It's not like being killed with a gun makes murder victims "more dead" than they would be if they were killed with some other kind of weapon.

The American people will never let anyone take our freedom away.

Preventing people from violating our rights is hardly an abuse of those rights.

That's what rights are meant to do. They protect people from those who would do them harm.

Hardly. We just won't let anyone violate our civil liberties.

No they aren't.

As long as it keeps preventing anyone from violating our civil liberties, it serves us extremely well.

And no. America will not consent to abolishing freedom.

Yes. The argument is clear.

It is also rejected.

The only reason for repealing the Second Amendment is to be able to do something that the Second Amendment would otherwise prohibit.

But it doesn't matter what the motive is for abolishing our freedom. The American people say no.

No it isn't. Gun control has nothing to do with safety. The only point is to violate people's rights for no reason.

No I'm not. All of my points are correct.

My posting of relevant facts and my showing that your claims are untrue actually furthers the debate quite nicely.

You evidently cared enough to make untrue claims about it.

The Miller ruling defined the right to keep and bear arms.

It is true though that there was no incorporation before 2010.

States have no problem regulating guns today as well.

The only thing that states are prevented from doing is hassling gun owners for no reason.

America is not going to allow their freedom to be abolished, so you may as well accept that no one will be allowed to hassle gun owners for no reason.

 

Needing an ability to fight tyranny is hardly the primary reason why people are arguing against abolishing freedom.

The National Guard is part of a standing army, and is therefore not a militia as far as the Constitution is concerned.

This is largely pointless since no one here is even making such an argument. But modern history shows that your prediction is pretty unlikely.

The only reason for repealing the Second Amendment is to be able to do something that the Second Amendment would otherwise prohibit.

But it doesn't matter what the motive is for abolishing our freedom. The American people say no.

The Founding Fathers didn't create the right to keep and bear arms either. That right was created thousands of years ago.

What the Founding Fathers did was create protections for that preexisting right.

There is very much a reason to keep having a right to keep and bear arms.

It prevents anyone from pointlessly hassling gun owners for no reason.

Preventing people from pointlessly hassling gun owners for no reason serves the nation very well.

Research shows no such thing. The only thing that "sensible gun regulation" does is pointlessly hassle gun owners for no reason.

And rightly so. Gun owners should not be pointlessly hassled for no reason.

America rejects all calls to abolish freedom.

Preventing people from being hassled for no reason is not an abuse. That is what our rights are supposed to do.

America says no. We will not abolish our freedom.

We are not going to replace the Second Amendment.

We are not going to repeal the right to keep and bear arms.

We are not going to stop enforcing the Second Amendment either.

Hardly ended it. The left continues to make the same discredited arguments that they have been making since FDR. No one has ever taken their nonsense arguments seriously, but they carry on making them just like before.

The fact that they were upholding the will of the Founding Fathers makes it a strong precedent.

America disagrees with you. We will keep our freedom.

It's not like anyone here is even arguing that. But history shows that guerrilla movements have a lot more success than you claim.

Fake news. They used the militia for general law and order.

That is incorrect. Pointlessly hassling gun owners for no reason does not save lives.

People who lack the right to keep and bear arms are not free. America chooses to keep their freedom.

I'm unsure why you keep going on about fighting tyranny. Has anyone here even made an issue of that?

However, modern history does show that guerrilla movements are more successful than you claim.

Preventing people from hassling gun owners for no reason is not an abuse. That is what rights are supposed to do.

Sorry, but no. America will not allow municipalities to violate people's rights.

The fact that it upholds the will of the Founding Fathers makes it a strong precedent.

America says no. We choose to keep our freedom.

 

It is an obvious fact that media coverage ignores content that lacks drama. Perhaps you've misunderstood my point. The OP in this post more fully explains my position on the subject.

That you equate guns with freedom, aside from Katy Perry's drama, what solution do you propose to protect the life and pursuit of happiness that was taken from the kids at Santa Fe Texas?

 

I'm only vaguely aware of who Katy Perry is, so I'm unaware of what drama you are referring to. The right to keep and bear arms has been a key pillar of freedom for thousands of years.

The best way to prevent unhappy people from lashing out at society and massacring random people is to curb bullying that makes kids so unhappy, and strengthen our social safety net so people do not suddenly face total loss if something bad happens in their life. Also increase our mental health care to help anyone who becomes deranged despite those other efforts.

Expensive, and not an easy thing to achieve. But that's the way to solve the problem.