Is there anyone here that believes the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment so that America would be the shooting gallery it is today?

[RF667799]

Thanks to @bongsaway for the idea of the format...

Whether you are a gun zealot or would prefer no guns in America, do you believe that the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment anticipating that America would become the most violent developed country in the world?

Congress won't do anything. The courts apparently never understood what a comma means in a phrase. Our only hope for meaningful gun safety in America appears to be in a Democrat President that is willing to grab powers denied to the Executive by law and use them.

What do you mean by "shooting gallery"?

Are you referring to the 100 million American gun owners who use their guns peacefully every year?

Or the .006% of Americans murdered by someone using a gun every year? Often, those murderers aren't even gun owners.

 

[CLAX1911]

Fantasies? I do have easily portable lethal power that can be used against humans. Reality.

I think he's trying to say you fantasize about murdering people he can't have an argument that doesn't involve accusing people of terrible things because his position is stupid.

It's called a motor vehicle.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Actually, yes. Prior to that it was viewed as a right to form a militia.

Bullshit. The 2A says “the right of the people”, not “the right of the militia”. And the Supreme Court has agreed that it is an individual right since at least the 1850s.

 

[VanceMack]

There are two answers to this question.

1-The Founding Fathers would shit on the rat politicians that have created the shitholes in this country and the revolving door justice system that is responsible for the vast majority of shootings in this country.

2-They would absolutely preserve the freedoms of the 330 million legal US citizens against retarded leftist politicians that would try to use the action of an extreme minority of criminal scumbags as justification to attack a Constitutionally protected right.

 

[Spock]

Bullshit. The 2A says “the right of the people”, not “the right of the militia”. And the Supreme Court has agreed that it is an individual right since at least the 1850s.

Read it and weep:
The militia represents a collective right. Heller turned that into an individual right.

The Evolution of the Second Amendment - New Jersey State Bar Foundation

by Jodi L. Miller “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment have been endlessly debated by legal scholars, judges and justices in the modern...

njsbf.org

 

[Spock]

There are two answers to this question.

1-The Founding Fathers would shit on the rat politicians that have created the shitholes in this country and the revolving door justice system that is responsible for the vast majority of shootings in this country.

2-They would absolutely preserve the freedoms of the 330 million legal US citizens against retarded leftist politicians that would try to use the action of an extreme minority of criminal scumbags as justification to attack a Constitutionally protected right.

A more enlightened SCOTUS would have concluded that 2A refers to a collective right to form a militia and individual firearm ownership can be heavily regulated since the consequences of modern firearms was never anticipated.

 

[yankintx]

You mean those “civilized” countries like the UK where you can be arrested for a FB post?

What was in the FB post to warrant an arrest?

 

[Safiel]

That sounds like a "process" and one I am not familiar with. Nor am I sure what the impact would be, what difference it would make in enforcement or legislation?

Basically, I would switch the underlying grounds for RKBA from the Second Amendment to the Ninth Amendment and the context from militia to self defense.

RKBA rooted in self defense is more relevant to the modern era than RKBA rooted in an archaic concept of militia.

It would be possible to actually repeal the Second Amendment and have a robust RKBA based on the Ninth Amendment.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Whether you are a gun zealot or would prefer no guns in America, do you believe that the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment anticipating that America would become the most violent developed country in the world?

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the level of violence in America.

Since gun control is not even about trying to save lives, blocking gun control does nothing that costs any lives.

Congress won't do anything.

What is there to do?

The courts apparently never understood what a comma means in a phrase.

There is no such meaning to understand.

Our only hope for meaningful gun safety in America appears to be in a Democrat President that is willing to grab powers denied to the Executive by law and use them.

In other words it is critical to keep voting for Republicans. The Democrats mean to abolish our freedom and violate our civil liberties.

 

[Spock]

Basically, I would switch the underlying grounds for RKBA from the Second Amendment to the Ninth Amendment and the context from militia to self defense.

RKBA rooted in self defense is more relevant to the modern era than RKBA rooted in an archaic concept of militia.

It would be possible to actually repeal the Second Amendment and have a robust RKBA based on the Ninth Amendment.

Let us just repeal 2A and leave it at that.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The Second Amendment was written for a very narrow reason. To keep the Federal Government from disarming State Militias. That is all.

That is incorrect. It prevents the government from disarming the people.

It also protects the right of militiamen to organize and train.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Second Amendment did not apply to the States, who were free to enact 100% gun confiscation if they had wished. And they did, in regards to non-whites for the most part, who, at best, had limited access to firearms.

Thank God for the Fourteenth Amendment.

And it took until 2010 for the Supreme Court to bother incorporating the Second Amendment against the States.

Thank God for judges who uphold the Constitution.

the Supreme Court will not always stay as it is and a future court will likely narrow the decisions of the current court and could even go so far as to disincorporate the Second Amendment by overturning MacDonald.

In other words, it is critical to keep voting for Republicans. The Democrats mean to abolish freedom in America and violate our civil liberties.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Some argue that the real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the framers knew the difference — see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote.

Those people are lying.

Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Madison were totally clear on that… and we all should be too.

Fake news. Never happened.

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason for the Second Amendment’s ratification was to preserve slave patrol militias.

truthout.org

Fake news. Never happened.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Is that when they invented gun ownership as an individual right?

No. That was 1541.

All rights are individual rights. "Collective right" is a term nonsense term. No one can ever explain what a collective right even is.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Actually, yes. Prior to that it was viewed as a right to form a militia.

That is incorrect. Prior to Heller, the Second Amendment was viewed as protecting the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Firearm addicts have developed a series of fantasies about being able to have easily portable lethal power to use against humans. That has produced mythology about defending a home or use of a firearm for self-defense. Those misconceptions serve to drive the pro-gun agenda. inflame the ignorant, and control the political process.

That is incorrect. "That guns provide people with protection" is neither fantasy nor mythology nor misconception.

Read it and weep:
The militia represents a collective right. Heller turned that into an individual right.

The Evolution of the Second Amendment - New Jersey State Bar Foundation

by Jodi L. Miller “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment have been endlessly debated by legal scholars, judges and justices in the modern...

njsbf.org

That is incorrect. All rights are individual rights. "Collective right" is a nonsense term. No one can explain what a collective right even is.

A more enlightened SCOTUS would have concluded that 2A refers to a collective right to form a militia

That is incorrect. There is nothing enlightened about maliciously violating people's civil liberties for no reason.

individual firearm ownership can be heavily regulated since the consequences of modern firearms was never anticipated.

Meaningless weasel words. "Heavily regulated" doesn't actually mean anything.

Let us just repeal 2A and leave it at that.

No.

We will be keeping the Second Amendment.

 

[RF667799]

Read it and weep:
The militia represents a collective right. Heller turned that into an individual right.

The Evolution of the Second Amendment - New Jersey State Bar Foundation

by Jodi L. Miller “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment have been endlessly debated by legal scholars, judges and justices in the modern...

njsbf.org

How long has Jodi Miller been seated on the Supreme Court?

 

[RF667799]

A more enlightened SCOTUS would have concluded that 2A refers to a collective right to form a militia and individual firearm ownership can be heavily regulated since the consequences of modern firearms was never anticipated.

This is an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Safiel]

Let us just repeal 2A and leave it at that.

No.

Let's just make the switch to 9th Amendment based RKBA jurisprudence and eliminate some of the stupidity of Bruen and its historical approach, which has led to nothing short of a ****ing jurisdictional mess in the Federal Courts

I favor a strong RKBA, but not the absolutist view of some.

And I reject arguments in favor of RKBA that infer that armed Americans are somehow going to stand up to a tyrannical government.

I have seen the average American. I live amongst them. I travel about the country.

A few extremists will fight.

The vast majority of fat, slovenly ****s will go belly up the very second the Feds knock on their doors.

Americans are too ****ing lazy and indolent to fight anything, as shown by the vast majority that are ineligible for military service coming out of high school

You could give all of them a squad machine gun and endless ammunition and it would change nothing.

Better to avoid the extremists of either party and vote for people willing to govern in good faith, not promote extremist ideology of either side.

It's both sides voting for their respective extreme elements that is most likely to lead to tyranny. The presence or absence of guns will make no difference. Americans are too pathetically slovenly and lazy to make any armed resistance likely.

Just a wet dream of some.

I support RKBA on self defense, sporting and hunting grounds.

But the whole resisting tyranny argument is laughable.

And many of these people probably are more concerned with their diabetes medication running out than their ammo running out.

There are a lot of good arguments for RKBA and against gun control.

Resisting tyranny isn't one of them.

 

[Safiel]

Thank God for the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yes, thank God for the Fourteenth Amendment incorporating the Bill of Rights against the individual States.

And thank God for unconditional birthright citizenship.

Both excellent.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Thanks to @bongsaway for the idea of the format...

Whether you are a gun zealot or would prefer no guns in America, do you believe that the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment anticipating that America would become the most violent developed country in the world?

Congress won't do anything. The courts apparently never understood what a comma means in a phrase. Our only hope for meaningful gun safety in America appears to be in a Democrat President that is willing to grab powers denied to the Executive by law and use them.

America is not a shooting gallery. Not even close.

And the comma argument is idiotic.

 

[KingLeo]

Those people are lying.



Fake news. Never happened.



Fake news. Never happened.

I see denial is not just a river in Egypt.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I see denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Thom Hartmann is lying. It is appropriate that lies be denied.

 

[KingLeo]

Thom Hartmann is lying. It is appropriate that lies be denied.

Being a follower of TrumpSpeak I doubt if a Trumper could even recognize a lie

 

[Noodlegawd]

A more enlightened SCOTUS would have concluded that 2A refers to a collective right to form a militia and individual firearm ownership can be heavily regulated since the consequences of modern firearms was never anticipated.

I'm pretty sure the Founders knew how to say exactly that, if that's what they wanted to say. Instead, they said that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Lursa]

Basically, I would switch the underlying grounds for RKBA from the Second Amendment to the Ninth Amendment and the context from militia to self defense.

RKBA rooted in self defense is more relevant to the modern era than RKBA rooted in an archaic concept of militia.

It would be possible to actually repeal the Second Amendment and have a robust RKBA based on the Ninth Amendment.

Again, that sounds fine but what difference would it make in terms of enforcement and legislation? Should the need arise regarding militias or a rogue govt, the arms would still be available to the citizens. (Understandably unlikely but asymmetrical warfare and Afghanistan do come to mind.)

 

[reinaert]

Thanks to @bongsaway for the idea of the format...

Whether you are a gun zealot or would prefer no guns in America, do you believe that the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment anticipating that America would become the most violent developed country in the world?

Congress won't do anything. The courts apparently never understood what a comma means in a phrase. Our only hope for meaningful gun safety in America appears to be in a Democrat President that is willing to grab powers denied to the Executive by law and use them.

Every gunfetisher heard the call of this thread. Prepare to be gished.