Heller, Bruen, etc., should be reversed

There is no common ground to be found anymore. Gun control advocates have made it clear that they would ban all guns if given half a chance. Until they can achieve that they will try and make it as hard on legal gun owners as they possibly can to exercise their Right to Bear Arms in Self Defense against both individuals, and a tyrannical government. And they will lie, spin, tell tall tales, manipulate, coerce, and use dead bodies to achieve their aims.

 

You might want to read the DoI. The Founders believed in overthrowing tyrannical governments and knew that the government that they established could one day become tyrannical. So try again.

 

Well, state the issue.

Until then ,I'm not seeing a counter argument offered.

 

Try this:

The original context of the Second Amendment, often linked to the notion of resisting tyranny, including foreign invasion, seems less relevant today given the United States' powerful military. This aspect of the amendment was historically significant when the U.S. had a less established military, but now, with our robust armed forces, the likelihood of needing a militia for national defense is considerably diminished. IN fact, I'd go further to say that it is nonexistent. This change in circumstances suggests that the historical rationale behind the Second Amendment's militia clause is no longer applicable.

Regarding the concept of 'fighting tyranny' within our own nation, well, I regret to inform you that this is now, given the reality of modernity, a veritable fevered fantasy meme propagated by groups like the Proud Boys and The Oath Keepers who have interpreted that particular sentiment as justification for their actions, assuming it aligns with their perceived right to resist what they consider 'tyranny'. However, this interpretation appears to misunderstand the original intent of the Second Amendment, especially considering that the Constitution authorizes Congress to use state militias to suppress insurrections, not to endorse them. In fact, their misguided sentiment has found a number of them convicted and in prison. So much for 'fighting tyranny'.

So, try again.

 

The Second Amendment does not have to be justified. It is in our Constitution.

"Shall not be infringed". The Constitution makes no exceptions.

 

You’ve made several points, so let’s address them one by one:

You mentioned that your position is backed up by the comments the founders made. While it’s true that the founders had various views on gun ownership, their comments should be understood in their historical context1. The Second Amendment was written at a time when the United States was a young nation with a distrust of standing armies and a reliance on citizen militias1. However, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved over time2.

You pointed out that the founders created a federalist system, and not giving gun control powers to the federal government is consistent with that system. While it’s true that the U.S. has a federalist system, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the federal government can’t have a role in gun control. In fact, the federal government has passed stringent firearms restrictions, and some states openly oppose such federal policy3.

You argued that gun registration has no value in fighting crime. However, studies have found that states with registration and licensing systems do a better job of keeping guns initially sold within the state from being recovered in crimes4. Moreover, states with weaker gun laws have higher rates of firearm-related homicides and suicides5.

You claimed that loosening restrictions on lawful gun owners has no impact on gun trafficking. However, research has shown that states that relaxed their concealed carry laws saw an average increase of 9.5% in the rate of assaults with firearms6.

Lastly, you suggested that public safety is not the real motivation behind gun control advocacy. While it’s true that people have different motivations, many advocates for gun control are genuinely concerned about public safety and believe that stricter gun laws can help reduce gun violence7

Annotations link to:

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constit...historical-background-of-the-second-amendment
2. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii/interpretations/99
3. https://chicagopolicyreview.org/202...he-intractability-of-gun-violence-in-america/
4. https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/3/184
5. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/us/everytown-weak-gun-laws-high-gun-deaths-study/index.html
6. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/s...hat-relaxed-conceal-carry-permit-restrictions
7. https://www.thoughtco.com/liberal-arguments-for-gun-control-3325528

 

The opposite is true. The reason the second amendment has been debated for so long and gun control legislation requiring lawyers to challenge it is it's lack of specificity using modern language.

Moreover, we are many times the large size of the the nation than we were in the late 18th century, we are far more complex, and with that comes a need for a more robust amendment, and laws. The more language, written with precision and specificity reduces the chances of varying interpretations, not increases it.

As for the 'need for lawyers', because the constitution is vague in a number of areas, subject to varying interpretation, it, as written, requires as supreme court to interpret it. so, your worry is already the status quo. I'm suggesting specificity so as to avoid more court rulings from the supreme court, where a lower court's ruling will be adequate, and even there there will be fewer challenges to laws given the specificity of the new amendment.

You see, the only time you 'need a lawyer' is when you believe a municipal or state law, or even federal law, has been enacted that you view is unconstitutional, and, because of that, you hire lawyers to challenge it. Isn't that is what is going on now? My more specified and modernized amendment will reduce challenges, not increase it, so the opposite of your concern will be true. .

the amendment I proposed doesn't outright ban guns. It allows state more freedom to regulate as they see fit, but a total banning of firearms is disallowed and incorporated at the state level. The amendment specifies what the scope of the rights where regulation is allowed and it would allow municipalities to ban handguns, if they so chose to. This is intended for those high crime cities that feel a need to protect their citizens. If is doubtful that all towns would follow suit, which was the case, historically speaking, only cities here and their require 'no handguns' within city limits. But, it would disallow the banning of rifles, which can be sued for hunting for food.

Now, to your concern, the amendment allows more freedom to states. so, marshalls in the red state would be less likely to see such regulation.

As for banning other things, note that the only purpose of a gun is to kill. It is much easier concealed and transported than, say, bazookas or bows and arrows, etc. The big reason I favor the proposed amendment is that Injuries from firearms became the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States in 2020, surpassing car accidents.

https://www.thoughtco.com/liberal-arguments-for-gun-control-3325528

I mentioned this, but I will let legislators propose it in such a way that it does not conflict with any incorporation doctrine already in effect.

NO one is 'disarming the populace'. The amendment will disallow any municipality banning rifles.

The relationship between law enforcement agencies and gun control advocates is complex and varies widely. Some law enforcement agencies and organizations have expressed support for certain gun control measures. For instance, leading police organizations and leaders have called for action on gun policy, advocating for measures ranging from expanding so-called red flag laws to authorizing authorities to take guns away from people deemed dangerous, to bans on assault-style rifles1.

On the other hand, some law enforcement officers oppose certain gun control measures. A survey conducted by PoliceOne found that a majority of the officers polled opposed the theories brought forth by gun control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime2.

It’s important to note that not all police oppose such legislation, and gun-rights advocates don’t see a conflict between combating crime and making it easier for people to carry firearms3.

Annotations link to:

1. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/16/politics/police-organizations-gun-control/index.html
2. https://www.police1.com/gun-legisla...-from-officers-perspectives-m4At3JUr9iHpA45K/
3. https://apnews.com/article/police-laws-gun-politics-41ba4360548ddc25672c797cd024af98

Making it legal doesn't mean it won't be controlled. In every state that made it legal it is controlled. The only thing that is not controlled
is the fact that you can purchase cannabis legally, in some states. Besides, cannabis doesn't kill. If anything, it makes you want to stay home and listen to music, or make love to your girlfriend. It makes me want to play my piano. Guns don't do that, I'm afraid.

Per the proposed amendment to which you have just responded, if passed, your point becomes moot.

Public opinion would directly affect whether a new amendment gets passed. We vote for legislators, they propose an amendment,

1. An amendment can be proposed either by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
   
   
2. Ratification: After the proposal, the amendment must be ratified. This can be done by the legislatures of three-fourths (currently 38 out of 50) of the states, or by conventions held in three-fourths of the states, as determined by Congress.

Note that all the persons voting for, signing, from the prez own down., are ELECTED officials, which means 'the people' are involved wholeheartedly.

I don't know about others' opinions, but certainly my opinion, for that's the only opinion I've got.

 

evolution over time based on political expedience has ZERO relevance to the views of the founders

secondly, there federal government only should have roles in areas where it was delegated powers to do so. IT was NEVER delegated any gun control power concerning PRIVATE citizens acting in a private capacity.

the federal government has violated the tenth and second amendment blatantly. This happened during the FDR administration where his administration and lapdog justices ignored the tenth amendment and pretended that sawn off shotguns had no militia use (a test that was bogus to start with) because there was no evidence presented by the Miller side of the argument since he had DIED. what the court should have done was REMAND the case to the TRIAL court to make findings of fact rather than do what the dishonest court did and make their own findings of fact without ANY evidence

You are now confusing assaults with firearms vs trafficking. Make up your mind

only ignorant people honestly believe that laws that only restrict what lawful people do will someone impact those who already ignore malum per se statutes

 

that nonsense alone is grounds to completely reject your argument as having no merit whatsoever

 

if public safety truly motivated the avid gun banners or gun restrictionists (pretty much the same mindset), they would be more for punishing those who harm others with guns rather than trying to pass crap that only restricts lawful gun owners harmless behavior. Or demanding lawful gun owners jump through hoops that criminals ignore.

 

Then felons, mentally ill can get guns, and they should be free.

 

I find it amazing how so many on the left just live in their own bubbles without the education of other world events to remind them of why we have a 2nd amendment. In 2002, the Venezuelan government passed the first version of the Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law, reinforcing the state’s iron grip on firearms in Venezuela. A decade later, the law was modified to enhance the scope of gun control and gave the Venezuelan Armed Forces exclusive power to control, register, and potentially confiscate firearms.

Under the banner of fighting crime, Venezuela implemented a ban on the sale of firearms and ammo in 2012. Like other gun bans, this proved futile in fighting crime. According to the Venezuelan Violence Observatory’s statistics, Venezuela’s murder rate skyrocketed to 92 murders per 100,000.

Venezuelans are now defenseless against a government that runs roughshod over their civil liberties while also destroying their economic livelihood. As if it weren’t enough, everyday Venezuelans must put up with rampant crime and the constant threat of Venezuela’s infamous pro-government paramilitary units.

Firearms bans, confiscation, and registration give the state a virtual monopoly on violence, thus turning its citizens into defenseless subjects. When the rubber meets the road, a disarmed populace has no chance against a well-armed Leviathan.

Somehow the left is oblivious to history, even when its just a few years old. All they know is what they want because they think inanimate objects are the cause of their despair. Thank God Republicans protect and defend the Constitution instead of interpreting what they want it to say.

 

Having the right does not make them free.

 

Reading either side of this argument is dizzying. There's absolutely no reason to go on for 13, more, pages about the Second Amendment. I don't know how many other threads have come before this one, but I know I've posted on my fair share of them. They all went NO****INGWHERE!

Heller, Bruen, McDonald have,-- >legally<--, clarified the ambiguities of the Second Amendment. <-period

• INDIVIDUAL Americans of legal age have the right to own firearms in CURRENT use, and that right shall not be infringed. And it doesn't matter if you're in a *******n militia or not!

Since the above cited Supreme Court decisions, IF you ever questioned what the Second Amendment says ^^^^^ functionally, today, that's what it says.

You can propose whatever you like, you can argue against those proposals all you want; until, as has been done, your blue in the face. But until the makeup of the Supreme court changes drastically, or both the Senate and House achieve a veto proof majority; there isn't going to be a change in the way the Second Amendment is interpreted and there isn't going to be an Amendment to amend the Second Amendment. That doesn't even acknowledge that the current make up of the States would have to undergo a miraculous change for an Amendment, that isn't going to happen, to get ratified.

• INDIVIDUAL Americans of legal age have the right to own firearms in CURRENT use, and that right shall not be infringed. And it doesn't matter if you're in a *******n militia or not!

That's it guys and gals.


Wouldn't be worthwhile to spend some of this energy on brainstorming ways to curtail the terrible, terrible violence These United States is experiencing? I don't mean pages of this crap. I mean discussing real solutions that can be achieved within the constraints of The Constitution and Laws we live by. I've tried making such proposals and before the end of the page we're right back in a pissing contest over what the Second Amendment says, what the Founders thought (which we really can't know or prove), what has been historically, what might be long after we're dead.

What the **** CAN be done to save lives TO****INGDAY? The life you save may be your child or grandchild's or you wife or sister.

Cheese us trucking rice all Friday!

 

what a worthless argument. it's illegal for felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent to possess firearms-both at a federal and usually a state level.

 

"Shall not be infringed". The Constitution makes no exceptions.

 

"Shall not be infringed". The Constitution makes no exceptions.

 

FALSE
The reason it is challenged so often is because the anti gun groups don't like it.
If it was so hard to interpret or had language that you claim is somehow out of date, then surely over the last 240 years someone would have cracked it by now. But they can't because the 2nd amendment is concise and exact in its meanings as confirmed by the SCOTUS over and over and over.

FALSE
The SCOTUS isn't there to interpret anything. They are there to ENFORCE the Constitution and its laws.

FALSE
Thousands of crimes are averted by gun ownership per year where no shot is fired.
Guns are also use for sporting events as well.

FALSE
First off, why is the CDC releasing data on gun deaths? Oh, thats right, for political reasons. Anti-gun researchers and the media abuse the CDC’s data to create misleading headlines, such as the one on this March 29, 2023 CNN article titled, “Children and teens are more likely to die by guns than anything else.”

As the CNN article discusses “children and teens,” consider the data on children - ages 0-12. For this cohort, firearm-related injuries are not the leading causes of death and are not higher than motor vehicle deaths. The number of motor vehicle deaths in this age group is more than double that of firearms-related deaths. The number of motor vehicle deaths in the 0-14 age group is 55-percent higher than firearm-related deaths. Moreover, when examining those ages 0-16, motor vehicle deaths are still higher than firearm-related deaths.

The REAL data (Not the fake CDC data) shifts when examining those ages 15-19. Over 80-percent of the firearm-related deaths happen among the juveniles and young adults ages 15-19. This disparity shouldn’t be surprising. The 15-19 cohort is far more often engaged in the type of street crime that can give rise to firearm-related violence and that many jurisdictions have decided to address in a more lenient manner in recent years. The conflation of this age group with young children is even more absurd when one considers that in the vast majority of jurisdictions those 15 and older can be prosecuted as adults.

The next time you see a shocking headline about children and firearms, keep in mind how those pushing a political agenda have no interest in the truth.

The left lives on half truths, false statistics, and fake propaganda to try and legislate gun control.
1. There is no language barrier or out of date language in the 2nd amendment.
2. The SCOTUS is not an interpretation counsel. They are to rule ACCORDING to the Constitution, not interpret it to their own liking which is how most leftist Judges do rule.
3. The CDC information is fake. Once you break down the real numbers its more than obvious why they lied about them.

 

and the constitution guarantees the right of assembly GUESS WHAT-those in prison lose that right. Lots of intelligent people understand that constitutional rights can be lost through due process of law. Now it is hilarious watching you defend "shall not be infringed" when you are on record wanting the government to confiscate all firearms and kill anyone who resists confiscation.

do you actually have a consistent position on this issue or do you constantly change your views in order to stir things up?

 

I agree with everything you posted.
And you and I have lived on this planet for over 60 years.
So my opinion is, this all starts with how our children are brought up now vs 40 years ago.
Just do a small bit of research and you will find the average age of mass shooters, the smash and grab crowds, the rioting increases we are seeing, the attacks on teachers by students, and how all of our teachers have become handcuffed in their own classrooms.

All schools have devoid themselves of everything but suspensions. It seems to me we are turning out more young citizens of an entitled nature and when things don't go the way they expect, these kids lose their s***. Just in my business alone, we have fired 11 people between the ages of 26 and 30 in the last 2 years do to their unreasonable job performances and demands. Maybe that doesn't sound like much these days but I remember when firing someone was a big deal and it wasn't often.

We are a community of what we create. If we are going to start somewhere, I say we invest in our children. Proper discipline/rewards creates character and pride. Teachers and law enforcement need to be hard to qualify for and with much higher pay grades. If we want better, we have to pay better. Not to say we don't have some very VERY dedicated individuals in those groups but they aren't paid what they are worth.

Teachers, Law Enforcement officers, Guidance counseling, Coaches, The arts and two parent homes are where we start. If we take care of the little things, I think the bigger things will take care of themselves. Those investments are front line as far as I can see. I feel we have failed our youth and we are now reaping what we have sewed.

 

Well, your phrase 'political expedience' is spin. So, setting that one aside, I'm for keeping what's pertinent, and discarding what's not pertinent to modernity. The Constitution was written in a vastly different era, with the framers unable to foresee modern challenges and advancements in technology. This perspective underlines the importance of adapting laws to current realities while balancing individual rights with public safety. I'm in the 'living document' school of thinking regarding the Constitution; it itself is a living document, meant to evolve with changing societal needs, rather than being rigidly bound to historical interpretations. But, don't interpret that as 'changing on a whim', we have stare decisis and the amendment process to stabilize the rough movements of the boat.

I don't think that is accurate. Congress has made gun regs, and states, as well, and there are Supreme Court cases regarding this.

[/QUOTE]

Off point.

 

Well, your phrase 'political expedience' is spin. So, setting that one aside, I'm for keeping what's pertinent, and discarding what's not pertinent to modernity. The Constitution was written in a vastly different era, with the framers unable to foresee modern challenges and advancements in technology. This perspective underlines the importance of adapting laws to current realities while balancing individual rights with public safety. I'm in the 'living document' school of thinking regarding the Constitution; it itself is a living document, meant to evolve with changing societal needs, rather than being rigidly bound to historical interpretations. But, don't interpret that as 'changing on a whim', we have stare decisis and the amendment process to stabilize the rough movements of the boat.

I don't think that is accurate. Congress has made gun regs, and states, as well, and there are Supreme Court cases regarding this.

[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

Later

 

No wonder schools don't teach history or logic, they'd never get folks to adopt their positions.

 

I never hear this argument when the bill of rights is applied to protect the internet, high speed printing presses, or computer based communications. I never hear this argument when the fourth amendment is used to protect against WIRE TAPPING, electronic surveillance, intercepting emails etc. I never hear liberal says that prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment only applies to the stuff the founders knew-like scourging or branding-but not electric shock or chemicals. But when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms-the left tries to pretend the second only protects muskets and other swill that ignores the entire purpose of the second-a right that is not limited to the 18th century state of the art any more than the first and fourth and sixth is limited to that time

congress has often violated the constitution. Dred Scott, Separate but equal and the internment of Americans merely because they had Japanese ancestry are all examples of blatantly unconstitutional crap that the Federal government has done and the courts failed to deal with properly.

the bottom line is this. Gun owners have the constitution on their side, they have the courts on their side, and if all else fails, they have the force of arms on their side. which is exactly what the purpose of the second amendment was guaranteeing

 

Would you like to explain how comparing your thread about overturning rulings on the 2nd amendment to the results of a country that just modified their own gun laws off point?
I take it thats code for, I don't want to talk about it because it doesn't fit my narrative.