49 killed resisting government gun confiscation (1 Viewer)

[Safiel]

I will say that it is significant that it took the Supreme Court fully 216 years, from 1792 or 140 years from 1868 to finally bother incorporating the Second Amendment, which, prior to 2008, was inapplicable against the States, only against the Federal Government.

From 1792 to 2008, the Second Amendment notwithstanding, it would have been fully permissible for a State to engage in 100% gun confiscation. Now, most States have Constitutional gun protections, but not all.

The incorporation of the Second Amendment is problematic, as it was clearly designed to prevent the FEDERAL Government from disarming STATE militias. States were presumed to have carte blanch to disarm who they pleased, like black and brown people. And anybody else they didn't want armed.

While I support a basic (not unlimited) right to keep and bear arms, I oppose the incorporation of the Second Amendment as contrary to its clear purpose and would instead seek a right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the Ninth Amendment, just as I would instead seek a right of privacy in the Ninth Amendment that protects abortion rights, rather than the stupid regime of Roe v Wade and PP v Casey.

I would reverse Heller, MacDonald and Bruen and instead replace all three with a right to keep and bear arms found in the Ninth Amendment, related strictly to self defense, hunting and other lawful activities.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

I will say that it is significant that it took the Supreme Court fully 216 years, from 1792 or 140 years from 1868 to finally bother incorporating the Second Amendment, which, prior to 2008, was inapplicable against the States, only against the Federal Government.

2010.
McDonald incorporated the 2nd against the states.

From 1792 to 2008, the Second Amendment notwithstanding, it would have been fully permissible for a State to engage in 100% gun confiscation. Now, most States have Constitutional gun protections, but not all.

Many, maybe most, states have Constitutional protections for the right to keep and bear arms; it is likely even the most liberal state supreme court would hold 100% confiscation as unconstitutional.
Now, all states effectively have constitutional gun protections, whether they like it or not,

The incorporation of the Second Amendment is problematic, as it was clearly designed to prevent the FEDERAL Government from disarming STATE militias.

It still does - by ensuring the right of the people cannot be infringed upon
Incorporation only strengthens that protection.

States were presumed to have carte blanch to disarm who they pleased, like black and brown people. And anybody else they didn't want armed.

And now they can't.
Again, a good thing.

While I support a basic (not unlimited) right to keep and bear arms, I oppose the incorporation of the Second Amendment....

Given the 14th Amendment and the incorporation of the remainder f the bill of rights, the incorporation of the 2nd was only obvious.
Embarrassing it took until 2010 for it to happen.

I would reverse Heller, MacDonald and Bruen and instead replace all three with a right to keep and bear arms found in the Ninth Amendment, related strictly to self defense, hunting and other lawful activities.

Unnecessary, as the 2nd Amendment - literally -already covers this.

 

[natman]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, NOT the right of the militia. The prefatory phrase does not invalidate the operative phrase,

Then what's its point?

The prefatory clause, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state" is crystal clear if it is simply read in its entirety. The authors thought a properly functioning militia was necessary for the security of a free state. Simple as that. This is well supported by writings of the time. This interpretation is literally what the prefatory clause says and has the advantage of being based on the prefatory clause, the whole prefatory clause and nothing but the prefatory clause. No taking words like "militia" or "well-regulated" out of context and spinning an elaborate explanation to fit a preformed agenda.

In order for such a militia to exist it's necessary for the civilian populace to be armed, which is covered by the operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Note that while the existence of a well-regulated militia depends on the right of the people, there no dependence of the right of the people on the militia. No "only when", no "only if", no "while serving in". Any argument that hangs on this non-existent dependency fails.

 

[Daddyo]

Conditional on Militia membership until activist Judges involved themselves.

You should try telling this garbage to our founding fathers. I have quotes from many of them saying that the people should never be disarmed. Falls right in line with how they used ”people” instead of “militia” in the second part of the amendment.

The activists are those justices that ignored the many many quotes and writings from the very people who wrote the amendment only to apply their own interpretation. In other words the leftists.

 

[natman]

Conditional on Militia membership until activist Judges involved themselves.

Prove it. If the right to keep and bear arms has indeed been conditional on militia membership from 1791 to 2008 it should be easy for you to provide numerous Supreme Court rulings to support your case. Otherwise, it's just more liberal fantasizing and there's no shortage of that.

 

[poppopfox]

And now they can't.
Again, a good thing.

A good thing.

 

[RF667799]

A good thing.

View attachment 67505451

Murder is not protected by the Constitution. Murder is not a civil liberty. Yet, removal of Constitutional rights and civil liberties from peaceful people is suggested as response to murders.

An un-American argument.

 

[Individual]

Where is this stated?

Some things should be obvious.

 

[zsu2357]

The militia is, of course, now obsolete, since we have a military.

Tell that too me and the person next door or down the street for each street.
Sure we have a military that's paid for by the govt. and maintained by the same.

 

[zsu2357]

*Crickets*

You and your crickets try to make talking points, but as far as any individual rights go you wouldn't know one if it bit you on your ass.

 

[Daddyo]

A good thing.

View attachment 67505451

A few hundred kids in 30 years compared to more than 18 MILLION in 30 years of you supporting baby killing. I can’t cut and paste pictures for you because thanks to you and mommy they were murdered before pictures could be taken.

You have no problem with that hypocrisy do you?

 

[zsu2357]

I'd say that if the US military is turned against the people you'd better pray that you're wrong.

I think it highly if not very highly probable that the military would intercede on our behalf.

 

[zsu2357]

Where were all of the farmers when the Japanese landed in Alaska during the second world war?

Oh you must mean when they landed in the western aleutins of which only about 29 out of about a force of about 2500 survived. Sorta outside of the neighborhood.

 

[zsu2357]

Laughable. As if any militia has any chance to standing up to the regular military of America. Do you folks even listen to yourselves with your imaginary scenarios?

Do you ever try reading anything in the correct context?

 

[zsu2357]

What makes you think the military would stay loyal to a tyranical government?

Because he is a very loyal anti gun person. And you are right of course.

 

[RF667799]

Because he is a very loyal anti gun person. And you are right of course.

These guys always tell the story like it is their political opponents engaging in armed revolt, and it is their government- also in opposition to their political opponents- that is bombing the American people in response. I think there's a lot of fantasy and projection involved.

 

[zsu2357]

These guys always tell the story like it is their political opponents engaging in armed revolt, and it is their government- also in opposition to their political opponents- that is bombing the American people in response. I think there's a lot of fantasy and projection involved.

Yes much fantasy and projection on the anti gun part of the equation.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The militia is, of course, now obsolete, since we have a military.

They had a military then as well.

 

[bongsaway]

Oh you must mean when they landed in the western aleutins of which only about 29 out of about a force of about 2500 survived. Sorta outside of the neighborhood.

Does it matter where they landed?

 

[bongsaway]

Do you ever try reading anything in the correct context?

Correct context? When the right is bringing up 'laws' from 1864 when Arizona wasn't a state and women couldn't vote, is 'in context' in the year 2024? Another context from two hundred and forty nine years ago was brought up by another GOP supporter about guns.

If context were actually used, trump would have been removed from several state ballots. Fellas' all I need is...context.

 

[Lutherf]

Correct context? When the right is bringing up 'laws' from 1864 when Arizona wasn't a state and women couldn't vote, is 'in context' in the year 2024? Another context from two hundred and forty nine years ago was brought up by another GOP supporter about guns.

If context were actually used, trump would have been removed from several state ballots. Fellas' all I need is...context.

Really? Your idea of "in context" is whether or not something is old? You don't think that maybe there should be just a little more thought put into your evaluation?

 

[JMB1911A1]

Really? Your idea of "in context" is whether or not something is old? You don't think that maybe there should be just a little more thought put into your evaluation?

Well, he does puts the “-duh” in Flori-duh (his location).

 

[natman]

A link from a left wing center for “Democratic Justice”. Try to find something less partisan if you want to back up your assertions.

If any of its wrong, prove it.

I agree with you that pointing out the article's left wing bias isn't enough. It should be discredited on its merits, or more precisely its lack of merits. So:

The cited article is a collection of events in American history that it twists in a feeble effort to support its conclusion that viewing the Second Amendment as an individual right interpretation is a recent phenomenon promoted by the NRA. It does so without any supporting citations or examples.

Let's start with this whopper:

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home.
This is a flat out lie, as the many SCOTUS rulings cited in post 66 prove.

In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.

An even bigger lie. Not surprisingly, there are no mention of what rulings those "other times" might have been, much less any supporting quotations.

...in the grand sweep of American history, [the Second Amendment] has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.

A vast distortion. As has been shown, there have been several cases about how the Second Amendment applied to a certain circumstance. Its meaning wasn't "ignored"; it was assumed to be an individual right from the beginning, just like every other right in the Bill of Rights.

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

Note the convoluted evasive phrase "declined to rule". Along with, yet again, a complete lack of case names and/or supporting quotes.

Cut to 1977. Gun-group veterans still call the NRA’s annual meeting that year the “Revolt at Cincinnati.”

It's true that there was a change of leadership in the NRA in 1977. It was brought about in response to a new phenomenon in American history - anti-gun legislation. Prior to the 1960s there had never been any need. This article has it backwards - it's the "collective right" view that is a recent phenomenon.

The individual right view has been in existence since the beginning.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[rahl]

Conditional on Militia membership until activist Judges involved themselves.

At no point in US history was membership ever a requirement. Every single court since 1857 has told you this.

 

[rahl]

Heller was when the Cinstituiin was changed. Your comment that it had always been that way is simply incorrect.

"Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise."

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

www.brennancenter.org

The first time the Supreme Court told you it’s an individual right was in 1857.