Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
What's this, what's this???!!! A bit of sanity? Can we now dispense of the CMS mandate, please??! Why do I have the feeling that we're being set up for something really stupid?
Wow! So this means I don't have to renew my concealed carry permit? I can actually exercise my 2nd Amendment rights with "permission" of the State of California?
Will we ever see an era of decent politicians? These do their best to destroy the police departments, too many scum AGs, and THEY run around with dozens of security guards. Too bad if you're on the Supreme Court and want your home protected or if you need to protect yourself. Disgusting. I hope we can get a few decent ones into the right positions in November.
That's why it is important to work for America first, MAGA candidates. I don't have much hope here in California since the Dems have stealing elections down to a fine art.
Judge Alito excoriates the dissenting opinion in his defense of the decision; see page 70. And if you read the first few paragraphs of the dissenting opinion, page 84 onwards, you'll see what he's talking about. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Reading the opinion, i feel like it reflects much of what we're seeing in society today, moral foundations vs how the wind is blowing today. A fundamental right to free speech vs protecting only those who share your opinion. Sex based on mobile or stationary gametes vs how i feel. Truth vs my truth.
Does the fundamental right to free speech apply Colin Kaepernick, who Republicans canceled for free speech? To drag queens reading books? To the authors of the books conservatives are banning?
How did Republicans cancel Colin Kaepernick? What books are being banned by Republicans? How?
Drag queens reading stories is another matter. I don't doubt they have a right to read stories. The question is why anyone would have their children attend when the goal is clearly grooming and proselytizing for their lifestyle.
The only one who canceled Kaepernick was Kaepernick himself. He’s a living example of what happens when one shoves his head up his sphincter all the way…. And poof! Disappears!
No one should fear lawful US citizens exercising their second amendment rights. It should be celebrated. Lawful US citizen won’t use the second amendment rights to self DEFENSE to commit murder, which is an illegal OFFENSIVE action.
Salvador Ramos was lawfully exercising his 2A rights until he fired on the children. How do you know when the "open carry" next to you is going to start firing at you? What drugs is he on? Did he forget his drug?
Great news for people living in those god forsaken states that have taken gun rights away from their citizens....illegally of course. How do people get back their lives once attacked, maimed and or killed by criminals in one of those cities? Hmmm?
They lied about 1A to make corruption legal. Now gun industry corruption is rewriting 2A using "creative interpretation". The constitution has been turned into a sick joke.
You apparently don't know any more than DK does about the Second Amendment. Would you care to explain how the gun industry is rewriting the Second Amendment? How do you understand the amendment, in light of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and the Cruikshank decision's holding that the Second Amendment is not the source of the right, but the right predates the instrument (Constitution)? If the Second Amendment is not the source of the right, then what does it matter what the amendment says about militias? That's irrelevant. The right exists, period.
Or, you can simply read my explanations to find out.
Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of western civilization?
I think it would be a good idea.
Taking out 2nd Amendment militarization would be the first step towards western civilization.
It is an amendment because the founding fathers understood that they cannot foresee everything. With a nuclear armed government, it is silly to expect citizens armed with 9mm pistols and AR-15s are somehow going to stop tyranny. 2A only enables Uvalde. Nothing else.
Gun industry corruption ensures 2A interpretation sells more guns. Not rocket science.
Funny you should mention that Gandhi quote. It's actually one of my favorites. But he wasn't talking about guns.
Most of your post has been covered in other posts of mine. You do err greatly, though, not knowing the history and intent of the amendment, among many other things.
But, do really want to know what sells more guns than anything? The threat to confiscate them. Most people are not stupid. They can be fooled a lot of the time, but they know a power grab when they see one.
One thing that comes to mind here is that 9mm pistols and AR-15s can take out a lot of swamp creatures much farther down the food chain than the federal government. State and local officials are not protected by nuclear arms, my friend. They are extremely vulnerable to irate citizens.
I'm not advocating anything here, only pointing out that when the proverbial poop hits the fan, many state and local officials, and their enforcers, will be very vulnerable. We won't take this treatment forever. There will come a time when the talking is over. Messages will be sent.
The people who currently rule us have no natural right to rule us. We allow them to rule us..., until we decide they don't.
You seem to think you know something about the words and intent of the 2nd Amendment. How do you understand the amendment, in light of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (yes, there is one) and the Cruikshank decision's holding that the Second Amendment is not the source of the right, but the right predates the instrument (i.e., the Constitution)? If the Second Amendment is not the source of the right (and it isn't), then what does it matter what the amendment says about militias? That's irrelevant. The right exists, period.
If you are so inclined, you can simply read my other posts to get a better, more comprehensive understanding.
Nobody on my side is lying about anything. The right predates any constitution or Bill of Rights or government. The Second Amendment recognizes that fact. The Cruikshank decision recognizes that fact. The Heller and McDonald decisions recognize that fact. The only people who don't recognize that fact are people like you, who want to read into the amendment something that it does not say. A few points support my argument:
1. Even if the militia clause is relevant and controlling (which it isn't) where does the amendment say that the federal government has the power to regulate anything? The militias were under the control and jurisdiction of the States, unless called into service by the general government. That means that the States decided all questions of composition, training and equipping the militias.
1b. If the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights against the States, then how does that enable the States to regulate, or infringe upon, the right, irrespective of militia service?
2. Ever since the earliest days of the Republic, every able-bodied male was considered part of the unorganized militia, which means that they automatically qualified to keep and bear arms.
3. If, as you maintain, the militia clause means that only members of the militia can keep and bear arms, that leaves no room for individual self defense. If the keeping and bearing of arms was contingent on militia service, then everybody else would be defenseless, right? Kind of makes a mockery of most of the state constitutions which declare that citizens have a right to defend themselves and their communities. How are they supposed to do that if they are unarmed? Swords and knives also come under the heading of "arms".
4. Many local militias required members to show up, furnishing their own weapons (ones previously owned). How was that to be accomplished if they didn't already have the right to keep and bear arms?
I could go on, but you get my drift. Even the Miller decision, from which many of you get your militia arguments, says nothing about militia service, only that certain weapons (sawed-off shotguns) could be banned because they do not fall into the category of militia weapons. It did not say that you had to be a member of a militia to keep and bear arms.
Would you care to engage with any of this? I'm not holding my breath.
"the words and intent of the 2nd Amendment" are irrelevant. The constitution can be amended because nothing is set in stone. 2A is irrelevant today and must be removed from the constitution.
""the words and intent of the 2nd Amendment" are irrelevant."
Well, maybe you think so, but DK obviously doesn't. And, I don't think you think they are irrelevant, either, because you keep arguing those words do mean something. See your comment just below. You say that they're being misinterpreted, so their meaning is obviously important to you. And, they're relevant because they are there. You have to deal with them.
You still don't quite get it. Yes, the Constitution and its amendments are not set in stone, and can be amended. But the point you are not quite getting is that the 2nd Amendment is not the source of the right, sir. I repeat, the 2nd Amendment is not the source of the right. Therefore, the amendment could disappear, tomorrow, but the right would still exist. You would have to pass a concurrent amendment stating that the federal government could regulate firearms ownership or the right to keep and bear arms.
Apart from the 2nd Amendment, there is no power granted to the federal government to regulate the right. So, merely getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would do you no good.
So, if you want to try, go ahead and propose an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment and at the same time grant to Congress or the Executive branch or the Judicial branch the power to regulate the right. Good luck with that, sir.
Even if you could accomplish that, there is that stubborn fact that the right still would exist. You wouldn't recognize it, but that does not negate the fact that the right would still exist. Would you like to know why? Because rights do not come from governments or constitutions, and they cannot be abrogated by governments or constitutions. Rights exist because they come from our Creator. And, last time I checked, nobody has caused Him to cease to exist.
This is where I part company with many so-called Constitutionalists. I think the Constitution is a hopeless mess and is wholly inconsistent with a proper understanding of rights, their origins and the proper place and role of government. I don't want to go into detail about this now, but you can read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason" essays to find out for yourself.
In short, you desperately need viewpoints outside of your pet sources. They are not serving you well because you are missing key facts and philosophical arguments. I am doing my best to fill in those holes in your knowledge.
You're welcome.
I keep waiting for you to engage with anything I have written. Instead, you keep bringing up irrelevant arguments that do not touch on my arguments. Can you keep focused on a single topic? Can you reply to the points I have made instead of jumping off onto your next tactic? You might say, "I did engage your argument," but simply contradicting me is not engaging my argument. You have to show why you are right and I am wrong. You have not done so, nor have you even attempted to do so.
There is no Creator. So there are no rights from "Him". If you had some omnipotent being providing you rights, why do you need stupid AR-15s to enforce them? Just pray.
The main point is that rights don't come from government.
I think this is your real sticking point. You can't get past this idea, because it destroys all of your arguments. You would rather think that rights are bestowed by government and can be regulated or rescinded by government.
You'll never understand if you can't get past that error.
It's broken in so many ways. The words and intent are now irrelevant. Even if the words were relevant, Salvador Ramos was part of which "regulated militia"?
Surely it is you who do not understand the wording and intent.
The most basic rebuttal to your statement is the fact the SCOTUS, in the Cruikshank decision, said that the right to keep and bear arms does not proceed from either the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, whatever you think the militia clause means, it does not mean that the right to keep and bear arms bears any relationship to being a member of a militia. And, in fact, the vast majority of males in this country are already members of the unorganized militia. Look it up. Thus, we are already members of a militia by virtue of being males within a certain age range.
Logic is not your strong suit. Your objection has been answered many times. A reason is not the same thing as a qualification. The militia clause is a reason for the amendment, not a qualification.
Gun control supporters should take comfort. Licensed gun owners commit less than 1% of all crimes with a firearm. More than 99% of all crimes with firearms are committed by UNLICENSED gun owners. Go after the unlicensed gun owners. Leave licensed gun owners alone in peace and safety.
"Gun rights." The government cannot 'give' you the right to carry a gun, they can only attempt to take that 'right' away! Like in China, or Russia, or Iran, or Britain, all of Europe, everywhere!
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
Judge Alito brought up something similar in the decision. "Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator."
Typically dumb and irrelevant argument by Alito, who was upset Breyer called out the court's conservatives for helping kill Americans. Smart people know gun regulations do not stop *every* bad actor; that does not mean they have stopped *zero* bad actors.
We don't know how many lives have been saved by this 100 year old New York regulation. By definition, we would not know about an act that didn't happen. You'd think a Supreme Court Justice would be able to figure out that, but this is Alito we're talking about.
We do know that states with looser gun laws have more gun violence. So we can expect that the radical right extremist Apartheid Court loosening blue state gun laws (so much for the "conservative" principle of local control) will cause more people to die.
Just remember when that happens: don't blame Democrats and progressive prosecutors. Blame the NRA and Republican Federalist Society hacks in the court system.
so this is where you have to overturn the 2nd amendment. you don't get to chip away at a fundamental right by contradictory laws which are supposed to be subservient to the codified right. i don't believe most of the problems we face are dems or republicans either. it's more of a haves and have nots.
The Second Amendment is not the source of the right, so overturning it would not change anything.
You would, at the same time, have to pass an amendment giving the federal government the power to regulate firearms ownership and possession. Simply overturning the amendment would not change the fact that the Constitution nowhere grants that power to the federal government. There has to be a positive grant of power for the federal government to do anything.
Those states with looser gun laws are not the problem. It is the cities within those states, and they have very strict gun laws. And leftist governments. They are shit-hole cities.
The only way to make your case is to use rates, whereas if you use absolute numbers your case falls apart.
You surmise that some lives have been saved by that law, or similar laws, but how many criminals would obey those laws? None, because they are criminals. Those laws only disadvantage the innocent and law-abiding.
As to your insinuation that local control means that they can trash rights when it suits them, I think that the Incorporation Doctrine means that states can't unduly restrict the right, either, if it means anything at all. That would be the most logical interpretation to me. If the federal government is disbarred from infringing on a fundamental human right, how could states be allowed to do the very same thing? I realize that flies in the face of reasoning by the Court in the Heller decision, but by what logic can the federal government be prohibited from infringing on a fundamental right, but the states are not similarly prohibited?
In short, logic is on our side. The Constitution nowhere gives the federal government any powers to regulate firearms ownership. The 2nd Amendment is a further restriction on the federal government, not a back door to regulation. The right to keep and bear arms predates any government or any compact. The right exists by itself, not because of any constitution or amendment. The states cannot deny or infringe on the right, save for very narrow restrictions and almost universally-achievable qualifications. The government, at all levels, derives its power to be armed from our right to be armed. If we don't have the right, they cannot have the delegated power.
Your arguments and statistics are irrelevant because they run headlong into undeniable facts and logic. I argue that no government has the power to restrict the right, unless they want to become lawless themselves.
Is that what you want? You think you can trust them with a monopoly on firepower?
In the interest of furthering the debate, I am going through the actual decision now.
I am through about page 17 of the whole document, about 10 pages into the opinion proper.
On page 17 of the document, I find the very troubling words, "The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.” Id., at 599 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id., at 595."
Can anybody find the troubling phrase? It is this: "...we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id., at 595."
Does anybody see the problem?
This is wrong, because in the line just before this, they say that, "...Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.”
They are contradicting themselves. Either the right is pre-existing, or it is not. I happen to think that the right is pre-existing, because that's what the Cruikshank decision said.
I bow to nobody in my general admiration for Justice Thomas, but here he had a chance to clear up this apparent discrepancy, and he didn't.
I'll read through the rest, but this is very troubling, along with the other stuff in the original Heller decision which perpetuated the myth that States had broad police powers to regulate the right. This is a back door to all kinds of mischief.
I sense a coup of some sort, the government can never be trusted. The Nationalist government entering States Rights arena. Yet, I believe we will see a drastic reduction of crime in those cities that claimed to be 'gun free' zones. Truly they are Victim disarmament zones.
What's this, what's this???!!! A bit of sanity? Can we now dispense of the CMS mandate, please??! Why do I have the feeling that we're being set up for something really stupid?
That’s exactly what I said. Ok, so they’re trying to placate us, what are they going to take away.
Granted, this is a pretty big one!
It does not get much bigger really. IMO, the Globalists want us disarmed. IMO, the Globalists are weak and we can take them easily.
Totalitarianism is something the masses must resign themselves to, they do not have the power to control us without consent. It is time we end them.
Agreed......100%.
https://rumble.com/v18ismd-professor-mattias-desmet-how-to-break-mass-formation-before-its-too-late.html
Good talk on thr matter...
Wow! So this means I don't have to renew my concealed carry permit? I can actually exercise my 2nd Amendment rights with "permission" of the State of California?
Hopefully. Had it been anyone other than Justice Thomas, my skeptic self would have bells going off. Wouldn't give 2 cents for justice roberts
Agreed. Unfortunately I read that the state can still punish us with high fees and qualification requirements, which seems wrong. We'll see.
Will we ever see an era of decent politicians? These do their best to destroy the police departments, too many scum AGs, and THEY run around with dozens of security guards. Too bad if you're on the Supreme Court and want your home protected or if you need to protect yourself. Disgusting. I hope we can get a few decent ones into the right positions in November.
That's why it is important to work for America first, MAGA candidates. I don't have much hope here in California since the Dems have stealing elections down to a fine art.
CA is so sad. I remember when we would spend vacation days in SF, drive down the coast to LA or San Diego and fly home. Loved it.
Judge Alito excoriates the dissenting opinion in his defense of the decision; see page 70. And if you read the first few paragraphs of the dissenting opinion, page 84 onwards, you'll see what he's talking about. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Reading the opinion, i feel like it reflects much of what we're seeing in society today, moral foundations vs how the wind is blowing today. A fundamental right to free speech vs protecting only those who share your opinion. Sex based on mobile or stationary gametes vs how i feel. Truth vs my truth.
Does the fundamental right to free speech apply Colin Kaepernick, who Republicans canceled for free speech? To drag queens reading books? To the authors of the books conservatives are banning?
How did Republicans cancel Colin Kaepernick? What books are being banned by Republicans? How?
Drag queens reading stories is another matter. I don't doubt they have a right to read stories. The question is why anyone would have their children attend when the goal is clearly grooming and proselytizing for their lifestyle.
The only one who canceled Kaepernick was Kaepernick himself. He’s a living example of what happens when one shoves his head up his sphincter all the way…. And poof! Disappears!
i'm pretty much an absolutist when it comes to the 1st amendment. the best defense against speech you don't like is more speech.
"drag queens"
Public indecency is not protected by 1A.
Free speech only protects corruption. Nothing else.
No one should fear lawful US citizens exercising their second amendment rights. It should be celebrated. Lawful US citizen won’t use the second amendment rights to self DEFENSE to commit murder, which is an illegal OFFENSIVE action.
Salvador Ramos was lawfully exercising his 2A rights until he fired on the children. How do you know when the "open carry" next to you is going to start firing at you? What drugs is he on? Did he forget his drug?
Great news for people living in those god forsaken states that have taken gun rights away from their citizens....illegally of course. How do people get back their lives once attacked, maimed and or killed by criminals in one of those cities? Hmmm?
Great news!
The Supreme Court's conservative extremists remain hellbent on killing Americans by lying about the words and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
They lied about 1A to make corruption legal. Now gun industry corruption is rewriting 2A using "creative interpretation". The constitution has been turned into a sick joke.
You apparently don't know any more than DK does about the Second Amendment. Would you care to explain how the gun industry is rewriting the Second Amendment? How do you understand the amendment, in light of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and the Cruikshank decision's holding that the Second Amendment is not the source of the right, but the right predates the instrument (Constitution)? If the Second Amendment is not the source of the right, then what does it matter what the amendment says about militias? That's irrelevant. The right exists, period.
Or, you can simply read my explanations to find out.
Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of western civilization?
I think it would be a good idea.
Taking out 2nd Amendment militarization would be the first step towards western civilization.
It is an amendment because the founding fathers understood that they cannot foresee everything. With a nuclear armed government, it is silly to expect citizens armed with 9mm pistols and AR-15s are somehow going to stop tyranny. 2A only enables Uvalde. Nothing else.
Gun industry corruption ensures 2A interpretation sells more guns. Not rocket science.
Funny you should mention that Gandhi quote. It's actually one of my favorites. But he wasn't talking about guns.
Most of your post has been covered in other posts of mine. You do err greatly, though, not knowing the history and intent of the amendment, among many other things.
But, do really want to know what sells more guns than anything? The threat to confiscate them. Most people are not stupid. They can be fooled a lot of the time, but they know a power grab when they see one.
One thing that comes to mind here is that 9mm pistols and AR-15s can take out a lot of swamp creatures much farther down the food chain than the federal government. State and local officials are not protected by nuclear arms, my friend. They are extremely vulnerable to irate citizens.
I'm not advocating anything here, only pointing out that when the proverbial poop hits the fan, many state and local officials, and their enforcers, will be very vulnerable. We won't take this treatment forever. There will come a time when the talking is over. Messages will be sent.
The people who currently rule us have no natural right to rule us. We allow them to rule us..., until we decide they don't.
You seem to think you know something about the words and intent of the 2nd Amendment. How do you understand the amendment, in light of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (yes, there is one) and the Cruikshank decision's holding that the Second Amendment is not the source of the right, but the right predates the instrument (i.e., the Constitution)? If the Second Amendment is not the source of the right (and it isn't), then what does it matter what the amendment says about militias? That's irrelevant. The right exists, period.
If you are so inclined, you can simply read my other posts to get a better, more comprehensive understanding.
Nobody on my side is lying about anything. The right predates any constitution or Bill of Rights or government. The Second Amendment recognizes that fact. The Cruikshank decision recognizes that fact. The Heller and McDonald decisions recognize that fact. The only people who don't recognize that fact are people like you, who want to read into the amendment something that it does not say. A few points support my argument:
1. Even if the militia clause is relevant and controlling (which it isn't) where does the amendment say that the federal government has the power to regulate anything? The militias were under the control and jurisdiction of the States, unless called into service by the general government. That means that the States decided all questions of composition, training and equipping the militias.
1b. If the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights against the States, then how does that enable the States to regulate, or infringe upon, the right, irrespective of militia service?
2. Ever since the earliest days of the Republic, every able-bodied male was considered part of the unorganized militia, which means that they automatically qualified to keep and bear arms.
3. If, as you maintain, the militia clause means that only members of the militia can keep and bear arms, that leaves no room for individual self defense. If the keeping and bearing of arms was contingent on militia service, then everybody else would be defenseless, right? Kind of makes a mockery of most of the state constitutions which declare that citizens have a right to defend themselves and their communities. How are they supposed to do that if they are unarmed? Swords and knives also come under the heading of "arms".
4. Many local militias required members to show up, furnishing their own weapons (ones previously owned). How was that to be accomplished if they didn't already have the right to keep and bear arms?
I could go on, but you get my drift. Even the Miller decision, from which many of you get your militia arguments, says nothing about militia service, only that certain weapons (sawed-off shotguns) could be banned because they do not fall into the category of militia weapons. It did not say that you had to be a member of a militia to keep and bear arms.
Would you care to engage with any of this? I'm not holding my breath.
"the words and intent of the 2nd Amendment" are irrelevant. The constitution can be amended because nothing is set in stone. 2A is irrelevant today and must be removed from the constitution.
""the words and intent of the 2nd Amendment" are irrelevant."
Well, maybe you think so, but DK obviously doesn't. And, I don't think you think they are irrelevant, either, because you keep arguing those words do mean something. See your comment just below. You say that they're being misinterpreted, so their meaning is obviously important to you. And, they're relevant because they are there. You have to deal with them.
You still don't quite get it. Yes, the Constitution and its amendments are not set in stone, and can be amended. But the point you are not quite getting is that the 2nd Amendment is not the source of the right, sir. I repeat, the 2nd Amendment is not the source of the right. Therefore, the amendment could disappear, tomorrow, but the right would still exist. You would have to pass a concurrent amendment stating that the federal government could regulate firearms ownership or the right to keep and bear arms.
Apart from the 2nd Amendment, there is no power granted to the federal government to regulate the right. So, merely getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would do you no good.
So, if you want to try, go ahead and propose an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment and at the same time grant to Congress or the Executive branch or the Judicial branch the power to regulate the right. Good luck with that, sir.
Even if you could accomplish that, there is that stubborn fact that the right still would exist. You wouldn't recognize it, but that does not negate the fact that the right would still exist. Would you like to know why? Because rights do not come from governments or constitutions, and they cannot be abrogated by governments or constitutions. Rights exist because they come from our Creator. And, last time I checked, nobody has caused Him to cease to exist.
This is where I part company with many so-called Constitutionalists. I think the Constitution is a hopeless mess and is wholly inconsistent with a proper understanding of rights, their origins and the proper place and role of government. I don't want to go into detail about this now, but you can read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason" essays to find out for yourself.
In short, you desperately need viewpoints outside of your pet sources. They are not serving you well because you are missing key facts and philosophical arguments. I am doing my best to fill in those holes in your knowledge.
You're welcome.
I keep waiting for you to engage with anything I have written. Instead, you keep bringing up irrelevant arguments that do not touch on my arguments. Can you keep focused on a single topic? Can you reply to the points I have made instead of jumping off onto your next tactic? You might say, "I did engage your argument," but simply contradicting me is not engaging my argument. You have to show why you are right and I am wrong. You have not done so, nor have you even attempted to do so.
There is no Creator. So there are no rights from "Him". If you had some omnipotent being providing you rights, why do you need stupid AR-15s to enforce them? Just pray.
If you think so, okay.
The main point is that rights don't come from government.
I think this is your real sticking point. You can't get past this idea, because it destroys all of your arguments. You would rather think that rights are bestowed by government and can be regulated or rescinded by government.
You'll never understand if you can't get past that error.
I'm done.
It's broken in so many ways. The words and intent are now irrelevant. Even if the words were relevant, Salvador Ramos was part of which "regulated militia"?
Haven't I already explained that the phrase is not binding? It is an explanation of why the individual right is necessary. It is not a qualification.
The relevancy is in the meaning, which you refuse to see.
I'm done.
Surely it is you who do not understand the wording and intent.
The most basic rebuttal to your statement is the fact the SCOTUS, in the Cruikshank decision, said that the right to keep and bear arms does not proceed from either the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, whatever you think the militia clause means, it does not mean that the right to keep and bear arms bears any relationship to being a member of a militia. And, in fact, the vast majority of males in this country are already members of the unorganized militia. Look it up. Thus, we are already members of a militia by virtue of being males within a certain age range.
Logic is not your strong suit. Your objection has been answered many times. A reason is not the same thing as a qualification. The militia clause is a reason for the amendment, not a qualification.
Good decision!
Flashback: Joe Biden Caught Running Secret Lists Used to Prevent Outspoken Political Opponents from Owning Guns
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/flashback-joe-biden-caught-running-secret-lists-used-prevent-outspoken-political-opponents-owning-guns/
You know the old saying: “God created man. Sam Colt made them equal.”
Way to go Supremes!!!!
Gun control supporters should take comfort. Licensed gun owners commit less than 1% of all crimes with a firearm. More than 99% of all crimes with firearms are committed by UNLICENSED gun owners. Go after the unlicensed gun owners. Leave licensed gun owners alone in peace and safety.
Finally some sanity. How about some sanity re: the 2020 election. Just my opinion.
“In a major expansion of gun rights"
What a laugh! Talk about an incorrect statement!
"Gun rights." The government cannot 'give' you the right to carry a gun, they can only attempt to take that 'right' away! Like in China, or Russia, or Iran, or Britain, all of Europe, everywhere!
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
No lets get police in our schools. The counter argument is weak, this needs to happen. You don't see mass shootings at police departments
How about the “novel “ idea that the shooters are not licensed gun holders either within the States or at the border with the cartels!!!
Feel free to ponder this one awhile .
Judge Alito brought up something similar in the decision. "Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator."
Typically dumb and irrelevant argument by Alito, who was upset Breyer called out the court's conservatives for helping kill Americans. Smart people know gun regulations do not stop *every* bad actor; that does not mean they have stopped *zero* bad actors.
We don't know how many lives have been saved by this 100 year old New York regulation. By definition, we would not know about an act that didn't happen. You'd think a Supreme Court Justice would be able to figure out that, but this is Alito we're talking about.
We do know that states with looser gun laws have more gun violence. So we can expect that the radical right extremist Apartheid Court loosening blue state gun laws (so much for the "conservative" principle of local control) will cause more people to die.
Just remember when that happens: don't blame Democrats and progressive prosecutors. Blame the NRA and Republican Federalist Society hacks in the court system.
so this is where you have to overturn the 2nd amendment. you don't get to chip away at a fundamental right by contradictory laws which are supposed to be subservient to the codified right. i don't believe most of the problems we face are dems or republicans either. it's more of a haves and have nots.
The Second Amendment is not the source of the right, so overturning it would not change anything.
You would, at the same time, have to pass an amendment giving the federal government the power to regulate firearms ownership and possession. Simply overturning the amendment would not change the fact that the Constitution nowhere grants that power to the federal government. There has to be a positive grant of power for the federal government to do anything.
Those states with looser gun laws are not the problem. It is the cities within those states, and they have very strict gun laws. And leftist governments. They are shit-hole cities.
The only way to make your case is to use rates, whereas if you use absolute numbers your case falls apart.
You surmise that some lives have been saved by that law, or similar laws, but how many criminals would obey those laws? None, because they are criminals. Those laws only disadvantage the innocent and law-abiding.
As to your insinuation that local control means that they can trash rights when it suits them, I think that the Incorporation Doctrine means that states can't unduly restrict the right, either, if it means anything at all. That would be the most logical interpretation to me. If the federal government is disbarred from infringing on a fundamental human right, how could states be allowed to do the very same thing? I realize that flies in the face of reasoning by the Court in the Heller decision, but by what logic can the federal government be prohibited from infringing on a fundamental right, but the states are not similarly prohibited?
In short, logic is on our side. The Constitution nowhere gives the federal government any powers to regulate firearms ownership. The 2nd Amendment is a further restriction on the federal government, not a back door to regulation. The right to keep and bear arms predates any government or any compact. The right exists by itself, not because of any constitution or amendment. The states cannot deny or infringe on the right, save for very narrow restrictions and almost universally-achievable qualifications. The government, at all levels, derives its power to be armed from our right to be armed. If we don't have the right, they cannot have the delegated power.
Your arguments and statistics are irrelevant because they run headlong into undeniable facts and logic. I argue that no government has the power to restrict the right, unless they want to become lawless themselves.
Is that what you want? You think you can trust them with a monopoly on firepower?
In the interest of furthering the debate, I am going through the actual decision now.
I am through about page 17 of the whole document, about 10 pages into the opinion proper.
On page 17 of the document, I find the very troubling words, "The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.” Id., at 599 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id., at 595."
Can anybody find the troubling phrase? It is this: "...we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id., at 595."
Does anybody see the problem?
This is wrong, because in the line just before this, they say that, "...Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.”
They are contradicting themselves. Either the right is pre-existing, or it is not. I happen to think that the right is pre-existing, because that's what the Cruikshank decision said.
I bow to nobody in my general admiration for Justice Thomas, but here he had a chance to clear up this apparent discrepancy, and he didn't.
I'll read through the rest, but this is very troubling, along with the other stuff in the original Heller decision which perpetuated the myth that States had broad police powers to regulate the right. This is a back door to all kinds of mischief.
I sense a coup of some sort, the government can never be trusted. The Nationalist government entering States Rights arena. Yet, I believe we will see a drastic reduction of crime in those cities that claimed to be 'gun free' zones. Truly they are Victim disarmament zones.