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

[reinaert]

I don't particularly care what the Founders thought, my support for gun rights is not dependent on the reasoning of slaveowners.

In fact, I would have argued that the right to fight one's oppressor is justification for inherent gun rights and I would have argued for arming the slaves.

Also interesting how many people can witness the threat of fascism in real time and somehow still not be on board with the right to arm oneself without the government getting in the way.

Whilst I agree, I will not make common cause with the Cult of The Holy Gun and Fetus.

 

[Lursa]

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

A "right of the people to keep and bear arms" certainly means an individual right. That part's pretty specific.

 

[Spock]

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.

"Self-defense" is just the "resist tyranny" fantasy on a smaller scale.
Firearms for "self-defense" has resulted in gangs with guns, road rage drivers with guns, angry spouses with guns, and guns in schools.
So, in the long run, a "self defense" firearm (typically a handgun) has produced more lethal confrontations than de-escalations in American society.

 

[Spock]

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."

There were many versions of 2A and it was not a particularly important amendment which, for the most part in American jurisprudence was ignored as a right until the NRA got ahold of it in the 1970's.

 

[braindrain]

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

Seeing as there has never been a SCOTUS decision that said anything different it seems you are talking out you ass.

 

[braindrain]

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

No it wasn’t. Why lie.

 

[braindrain]

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.

It’s seems you don’t actually understand what the term enlightened means. Here’s a hint it doesn’t mean someone who just makes shit up.

 

[braindrain]

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

The horror of people discussing things they have an interest in on a discussion site.

Sorry but it is the gun control zealots that prove over and over again that all they have is lies and BS

 

[braindrain]

There were many versions of 2A and it was not a particularly important amendment which, for the most part in American jurisprudence was ignored as a right until the NRA got ahold of it in the 1970's.

And the only one that matters is the final version. And the second part of your post is just a straight up lie.

 

[Spock]

No it wasn’t. Why lie.

Why not get educated rather than disparaging someone who knows more than you do?

 

[braindrain]

Why not get educated rather than disparaging someone who knows more than you do?

Seeing as you constantly post incorrect information it is rather obvious you know almost nothing in this topic.

 

[Spock]

Seeing as you constantly post incorrect information it is rather obvious you know almost nothing in this topic.

I am not feeling the love of someone who values knowledge.
Read information in post #80; then google <how the NRA changed the Second Amendment>, then read Heller.
Education is your friend, friend.

 

[braindrain]

I am not feeling the love of someone who values knowledge.
Read information in post #80; then google <how the NRA changed the Second Amendment>, then read Heller.
Education is your friend, friend.

Your BS propaganda is not knowledge.
The NRA didn’t change the 2nd at all.

The right of the people is literally spelled out for you. No matter how much you try and pretend otherwise.
The NRA is not the SCOTUS. Learn the difference.

 

[JMB1911A1]

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

Wow, an opinion based on a couple of books. Convinced, I am not.

How about an actual article by lawyers?

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=clevstlrev

The “collective right” theory, while dominating case law circa 1990, had little standing throughout most of our history. It rose to prominence only in the lower federal courts beginning in the 1940s, and achieved its dominance only in the 1970s. Put in historical context, Heller and McDonald are not so much a dramatic change in constitutional interpretation so much as a rejection of a relatively recent trend in the lower courts, a trend that was subject to academic criticism even as it took form.
...
The evidence indicates that the collective right view (1) had a tentative origin in the early 20th century; (2) it began to gain ground in the mid-century based upon policy considerations (primarily the need to sustain the National Firearms Act’s restrictions upon machine guns and related arms) rather than law or history; (3) it gained widespread acceptance among lower federal courts in the 1960s, and thereafter as a means of upholding firearm laws in general.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of collective rights in District of Columbia v. Heller was thus no legal novelty; it was simply a refusal to accept a recent invention of lower courts.

 

[JMB1911A1]

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

Personal insults really hep you case. And facts are not gish.

 

[ataraxia]

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

Why would the federal govt do that? The state militias were ultimately placed under the power of the presidency.

 

[Spock]

Your BS propaganda is not knowledge.
The NRA didn’t change the 2nd at all.

The right of the people is literally spelled out for you. No matter how much you try and pretend otherwise.
The NRA is not the SCOTUS. Learn the difference.

Ok. Locked into your ignorance. No change expected nor possible.

Wow, an opinion based on a couple of books. Convinced, I am not.

How about an actual article by lawyers?

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=clevstlrev

The “collective right” theory, while dominating case law circa 1990, had little standing throughout most of our history. It rose to prominence only in the lower federal courts beginning in the 1940s, and achieved its dominance only in the 1970s. Put in historical context, Heller and McDonald are not so much a dramatic change in constitutional interpretation so much as a rejection of a relatively recent trend in the lower courts, a trend that was subject to academic criticism even as it took form.
...
The evidence indicates that the collective right view (1) had a tentative origin in the early 20th century; (2) it began to gain ground in the mid-century based upon policy considerations (primarily the need to sustain the National Firearms Act’s restrictions upon machine guns and related arms) rather than law or history; (3) it gained widespread acceptance among lower federal courts in the 1960s, and thereafter as a means of upholding firearm laws in general.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of collective rights in District of Columbia v. Heller was thus no legal novelty; it was simply a refusal to accept a recent invention of lower courts.

"When first I wrote on the subject in 1974, Second Amendment scholarship was almost nonexistent, but the common belief was that the Amendment protected some manner of State right to control National Guard units, a belief universally accepted in case law at the federal level..."

 

[Spock]

Wow, an opinion based on a couple of books. Convinced, I am not.

How about an actual article by lawyers?

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=clevstlrev

The “collective right” theory, while dominating case law circa 1990, had little standing throughout most of our history. It rose to prominence only in the lower federal courts beginning in the 1940s, and achieved its dominance only in the 1970s. Put in historical context, Heller and McDonald are not so much a dramatic change in constitutional interpretation so much as a rejection of a relatively recent trend in the lower courts, a trend that was subject to academic criticism even as it took form.
...
The evidence indicates that the collective right view (1) had a tentative origin in the early 20th century; (2) it began to gain ground in the mid-century based upon policy considerations (primarily the need to sustain the National Firearms Act’s restrictions upon machine guns and related arms) rather than law or history; (3) it gained widespread acceptance among lower federal courts in the 1960s, and thereafter as a means of upholding firearm laws in general.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of collective rights in District of Columbia v. Heller was thus no legal novelty; it was simply a refusal to accept a recent invention of lower courts.

Look at the actual SCOTUS ruling on 2A:

Gun Rights / Gun Control Supreme Court Cases

Read important U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving Gun Rights / Gun Control and learn about how the Justices have shaped the law in this area.

supreme.justia.com

Heller created the individual right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

As long as the 2nd remains, democrats will never gain the absolute power they lust after.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Ok. Locked into your ignorance. No change expected nor possible.

"When first I wrote on the subject in 1974, Second Amendment scholarship was almost nonexistent, but the common belief was that the Amendment protected some manner of State right to control National Guard units, a belief universally accepted in case law at the federal level..."

He never says that he agreed with the erroneous "common belief". Read the whole article and you will find that the collective right theory started in 1905.

1905: City of Salina v. Blaksley

Early in the century came the first clear use, and the first use since State v. Buzzard, of a militia-use-only reading of a state constitution.

An interesting feature of Blaksley was that neither party contended that the right to arms was limited to militia service, likely because there was almost no precedent supporting such an approach (State v. Buzzard is not cited in the Kansas ruling and apparently was undiscovered by the court).

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is no evidence at all to suggest that is what mass shooters do.

There is absolute proof that is what mass shooters do.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Look at the actual SCOTUS ruling on 2A:

Gun Rights / Gun Control Supreme Court Cases

Read important U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving Gun Rights / Gun Control and learn about how the Justices have shaped the law in this area.

supreme.justia.com

Heller created the individual right.

Why do you keep lying? The individual right has existed since before this country was founded and the protection of such a right was codified in the 2A.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is no evidence at all.

If you just lie harder - reality will conform: democrat scripture..

 

[Noodlegawd]

There were many versions of 2A and it was not a particularly important amendment which, for the most part in American jurisprudence was ignored as a right until the NRA got ahold of it in the 1970's.

There's only one version of the 2A that was ratified and became law.

And there was not need for the NRA to do anything with it because by-and-large, the government was not trying to massively restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

"An armed populace is impossible to rule." - Henry the VIII

Tyrants banned weapons before guns even existed.