Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vox)   You'd be forgiven if you never knew, or even forgot about it, but there once was a judge who wanted to get rid of the Second Amendment   (vox.com) divider line
    More: Vintage, Supreme Court of the United States, constructive gun control legislation, United States Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Firearm, individual right, John Paul Stevens  
•       •       •

1561 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 May 2022 at 2:05 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



37 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-05-25 10:07:04 PM  
Repealing the Second Amendment would be nice and I support it. However, it is politically impossible at this time. Getting 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House and then getting the legislative action approved by 38 States is an impossible barrier.

It is like the Electoral College. We should assume we are stuck with it.

However, we are not stuck with the current judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. So the most practical road to gun control is electing Presidents and Senators who oppose unregulated gun rights to slow shift the Supreme Court to that position.

It sucks. It's wrong and it will take forever to get to a better place. But dreams of repealing the Second Amendment are a waste of time.

(And don't suggest a Constitutional Convention - I can only imagine that as a disaster as the Right goes after the First Amendment).
 
2022-05-26 1:56:02 AM  
womensvoicesmedia.orgView Full Size
 
2022-05-26 2:12:49 AM  
What will strike young folks here as even stranger--he was a Republican, appointed by a Republican (Gerald Ford) replacing the truly great late Justice William O Douglas.
 
2022-05-26 2:19:24 AM  

BigMax: Repealing the Second Amendment would be nice and I support it. However, it is politically impossible at this time. Getting 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House and then getting the legislative action approved by 38 States is an impossible barrier.

It is like the Electoral College. We should assume we are stuck with it.

However, we are not stuck with the current judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. So the most practical road to gun control is electing Presidents and Senators who oppose unregulated gun rights to slow shift the Supreme Court to that position.

It sucks. It's wrong and it will take forever to get to a better place. But dreams of repealing the Second Amendment are a waste of time.

(And don't suggest a Constitutional Convention - I can only imagine that as a disaster as the Right goes after the First Amendment).


I'm tellin' ya, get every black man and woman, every leftist and atheist to open carry heavy weaponry, and the 2nd amendment will disappear faster than a Big Mac in front of TFG.
 
2022-05-26 2:20:37 AM  
We already have the legal mechanism in place: civil forfeiture them. No fuss, no muss
 
2022-05-26 2:21:17 AM  
That was in the before times when people took their jobs seriously. Nowadays you pay off some credit card debts and whatnot and before you can say "I LIKE BEER!" you own some justices who'll sign off on any loopy shizz you want
 
2022-05-26 2:21:41 AM  
How about a federal law of " Use a gun for any crime , you get life without parole " ..
 
2022-05-26 2:22:03 AM  

hegelsghost: appointed by a Republican (Gerald Ford)


RINO. Ford was installed by globalists who wanted Carter in office to get revenge for the Six-Day War.
 
2022-05-26 2:33:44 AM  
blogger.googleusercontent.comView Full Size


/too sad for words
//this country is insane
 
2022-05-26 2:52:53 AM  
There's a lot of amazing and influential people in America's past that its education system makes damn certain you don't know about because it might threaten the cancerous delusion of perpetual economic growth.
 
2022-05-26 3:28:11 AM  

mikalmd: How about a federal law of " Use a gun for any crime , you get life without parole " ..


Great plan! That will totally deter gunmen who count on getting shot by the cops. Not to mention the huge impact it will have on murder-suicides, terrorists, and people who commit capital crimes.
 
2022-05-26 4:25:55 AM  
TFA mentions academic Saul Cornell. I can't find it now but I read an op-ed once by Saul Cornell (I'm almost positive it was him) who explained that "well regulated militia" referred to colonial era state militia forces which were directed by state governors. They were highly regulated - the laws/regulations controlling them were often very long - and what was interesting was that prior to the second amendment, men could be forced by states to be militia members and that gun ownership was therefore mandatory. Men could be punished for not keeping their weapons serviceable.

Thus the second amendment, by creating a right to bear arms, actually created the right NOT to bear arms in a number of states, which was a good idea for folks whose religion opposed this (eg Quakers).

Ammosexuals sometimes think there was no right to bear arms prior to 2A, this couldn't be further from the truth, not only were there plenty of guns but as explained above men could be compelled by law to own them.

I'm not a lawyer but I can see how the 2008 SCOSA decision really morphed the original concept of 2A by making it about personal security, this was never what it was about historically.
 
2022-05-26 5:35:21 AM  
What was written first :

The U.S. Constitution
Article I  Legislative Branch
Section 8 Powers of Congress
Clause 15 The Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
Clause 16 The Militia
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Are you ready ...? Because AS A LIBERTARIAN ( I am no longer ) I realized long ago that the FOLLOWING is an AMENDMENT! I.e. a clarification.

Second Amendment  Bearing and Keeping Arms
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.

Put those laws into perspective. The guns of war were to be kept at armories ( as was the onion belt ways of the time ), they were to be well-regulated and they were to be available to anyone as need to fulfill ARTICLE FARKING 1 SECTION 8, Congress!!!!

/ Dumbfarks, it's right there in writing.
 
2022-05-26 5:41:50 AM  
What pisses me off is I am a burnout former bass player with no other skills and can barely do that and I read that in The Constitution.

/ But nooooooo, who listens to bass players?
 
2022-05-26 5:43:45 AM  

CrazyCurt: What was written first :

The U.S. Constitution
Article I  Legislative Branch
Section 8 Powers of Congress
Clause 15 The Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
Clause 16 The Militia
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Are you ready ...? Because AS A LIBERTARIAN ( I am no longer ) I realized long ago that the FOLLOWING is an AMENDMENT! I.e. a clarification.

Second Amendment  Bearing and Keeping Arms
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.

Put those laws into perspective. The guns of war were to be kept at armories ( as was the onion belt ways of the time ), they were to be well-regulated and they were to be available to anyone as need to fulfill ARTICLE FARKING 1 SECTION 8, Congress!!!!

/ Dumbfarks, it's right there in writing.


Great. The problem is that no one is required to pay attention to your personal interpretation, so expressing it and saying it's the correct one is entirely farking irrelevant.
 
2022-05-26 5:47:18 AM  

qorkfiend: CrazyCurt: What was written first :

The U.S. Constitution
Article I  Legislative Branch
Section 8 Powers of Congress
Clause 15 The Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
Clause 16 The Militia
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Are you ready ...? Because AS A LIBERTARIAN ( I am no longer ) I realized long ago that the FOLLOWING is an AMENDMENT! I.e. a clarification.

Second Amendment  Bearing and Keeping Arms
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.

Put those laws into perspective. The guns of war were to be kept at armories ( as was the onion belt ways of the time ), they were to be well-regulated and they were to be available to anyone as need to fulfill ARTICLE FARKING 1 SECTION 8, Congress!!!!

/ Dumbfarks, it's right there in writing.

Great. The problem is that no one is required to pay attention to your personal interpretation, so expressing it and saying it's the correct one is entirely farking irrelevant.


Oh but it is relevant due to the supreme court case that "clarified" it, Steve. The very fact that a Conservative court from Eisen-farking-hower's day certainly had nothing to do with Barret v U.S.

/ Try harder Mr. Bannon
 
2022-05-26 5:48:52 AM  

CrazyCurt: qorkfiend: CrazyCurt: What was written first :

The U.S. Constitution
Article I  Legislative Branch
Section 8 Powers of Congress
Clause 15 The Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
Clause 16 The Militia
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Are you ready ...? Because AS A LIBERTARIAN ( I am no longer ) I realized long ago that the FOLLOWING is an AMENDMENT! I.e. a clarification.

Second Amendment  Bearing and Keeping Arms
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.

Put those laws into perspective. The guns of war were to be kept at armories ( as was the onion belt ways of the time ), they were to be well-regulated and they were to be available to anyone as need to fulfill ARTICLE FARKING 1 SECTION 8, Congress!!!!

/ Dumbfarks, it's right there in writing.

Great. The problem is that no one is required to pay attention to your personal interpretation, so expressing it and saying it's the correct one is entirely farking irrelevant.

Oh but it is relevant due to the supreme court case that "clarified" it, Steve. The very fact that a Conservative court from Eisen-farking-hower's day certainly had nothing to do with Barret v U.S.

/ Try harder Mr. Bannon


Are you on the Supreme Court? No? Alrighty then.
 
2022-05-26 5:50:11 AM  
I am not for the government taking any right away from the individual person, whether abortion or the 2nd Amendment. The problem with the 2nd Amendment is we allowed the right wing to define its meaning based only on the second part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Meanwhile the first part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is completely ignored. The 2nd Amendment has the word "regulated" in it pointing towards a militia, meaning that while the right to near arms shall not be infringed, those who execute that right must be regulated. How? That is the answer of those who make the laws. But the bottom line is the left should find ways to bring 2nd Amendment cases to the courts based on that premise, and force the issue of the first part regarding "A well regulated militia". Since it was first, our founding fathers must have felt it more important than the second part.
 
2022-05-26 5:51:40 AM  

qorkfiend: CrazyCurt: qorkfiend: CrazyCurt: What was written first :

The U.S. Constitution
Article I  Legislative Branch
Section 8 Powers of Congress
Clause 15 The Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
Clause 16 The Militia
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Are you ready ...? Because AS A LIBERTARIAN ( I am no longer ) I realized long ago that the FOLLOWING is an AMENDMENT! I.e. a clarification.

Second Amendment  Bearing and Keeping Arms
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.

Put those laws into perspective. The guns of war were to be kept at armories ( as was the onion belt ways of the time ), they were to be well-regulated and they were to be available to anyone as need to fulfill ARTICLE FARKING 1 SECTION 8, Congress!!!!

/ Dumbfarks, it's right there in writing.

Great. The problem is that no one is required to pay attention to your personal interpretation, so expressing it and saying it's the correct one is entirely farking irrelevant.

Oh but it is relevant due to the supreme court case that "clarified" it, Steve. The very fact that a Conservative court from Eisen-farking-hower's day certainly had nothing to do with Barret v U.S.

/ Try harder Mr. Bannon

Are you on the Supreme Court? No? Alrighty then.


At least we all know you weren't required to pay attention and yet ... somehow ... you did.

/ A bright light always attracts the dingbats.
 
2022-05-26 5:53:39 AM  

heavymetal: I am not for the government taking any right away from the individual person, whether abortion or the 2nd Amendment. The problem with the 2nd Amendment is we allowed the right wing to define its meaning based only on the second part "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Meanwhile the first part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is completely ignored. The 2nd Amendment has the word "regulated" in it pointing towards a militia, meaning that while the right to near arms shall not be infringed, those who execute that right must be regulated. How? That is the answer of those who make the laws. But the bottom line is the left should find ways to bring 2nd Amendment cases to the courts based on that premise, and force the issue of the first part regarding "A well regulated militia". Since it was first, our founding fathers must have felt it more important than the second part.


Article 1, Section 8. It drives the gun nuts nuttier. See above. They KNOW. I know. Now you do too.

/ Fark the Conservative Dupes
 
2022-05-26 5:57:17 AM  

CrazyCurt: What was written first :

The U.S. Constitution
Article I  Legislative Branch
Section 8 Powers of Congress
Clause 15 The Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


Hell let's have fun with just this part ...

All the MAGATs that participated and supported the insurrection are FARKING TARGETS by The Constitution.

/ Sweet!
 
2022-05-26 6:09:30 AM  

qorkfiend: CrazyCurt: qorkfiend: CrazyCurt: What was written first :

The U.S. Constitution
Article I  Legislative Branch
Section 8 Powers of Congress
Clause 15 The Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
Clause 16 The Militia
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Are you ready ...? Because AS A LIBERTARIAN ( I am no longer ) I realized long ago that the FOLLOWING is an AMENDMENT! I.e. a clarification.

Second Amendment  Bearing and Keeping Arms
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.

Put those laws into perspective. The guns of war were to be kept at armories ( as was the onion belt ways of the time ), they were to be well-regulated and they were to be available to anyone as need to fulfill ARTICLE FARKING 1 SECTION 8, Congress!!!!

/ Dumbfarks, it's right there in writing.

Great. The problem is that no one is required to pay attention to your personal interpretation, so expressing it and saying it's the correct one is entirely farking irrelevant.

Oh but it is relevant due to the supreme court case that "clarified" it, Steve. The very fact that a Conservative court from Eisen-farking-hower's day certainly had nothing to do with Barret v U.S.

/ Try harder Mr. Bannon

Are you on the Supreme Court? No? Alrighty then.


Is being a SC justice a requirement for posting in this thread?

No? Oh, ok, then you should just shut the fark up anyway
 
2022-05-26 6:15:47 AM  

CrazyCurt: qorkfiend: CrazyCurt: qorkfiend: CrazyCurt: What was written first :

The U.S. Constitution
Article I  Legislative Branch
Section 8 Powers of Congress
Clause 15 The Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
Clause 16 The Militia
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Are you ready ...? Because AS A LIBERTARIAN ( I am no longer ) I realized long ago that the FOLLOWING is an AMENDMENT! I.e. a clarification.

Second Amendment  Bearing and Keeping Arms
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.

Put those laws into perspective. The guns of war were to be kept at armories ( as was the onion belt ways of the time ), they were to be well-regulated and they were to be available to anyone as need to fulfill ARTICLE FARKING 1 SECTION 8, Congress!!!!

/ Dumbfarks, it's right there in writing.

Great. The problem is that no one is required to pay attention to your personal interpretation, so expressing it and saying it's the correct one is entirely farking irrelevant.

Oh but it is relevant due to the supreme court case that "clarified" it, Steve. The very fact that a Conservative court from Eisen-farking-hower's day certainly had nothing to do with Barret v U.S.

/ Try harder Mr. Bannon

Are you on the Supreme Court? No? Alrighty then.

At least we all know you weren't required to pay attention and yet ... somehow ... you did.

/ A bright light always attracts the dingbats.


Do you only do the things required of you? That's an interesting life.
 
2022-05-26 6:17:02 AM  

Aussie_As: TFA mentions academic Saul Cornell. I can't find it now but I read an op-ed once by Saul Cornell (I'm almost positive it was him) who explained that "well regulated militia" referred to colonial era state militia forces which were directed by state governors. They were highly regulated - the laws/regulations controlling them were often very long - and what was interesting was that prior to the second amendment, men could be forced by states to be militia members and that gun ownership was therefore mandatory. Men could be punished for not keeping their weapons serviceable.

Thus the second amendment, by creating a right to bear arms, actually created the right NOT to bear arms in a number of states, which was a good idea for folks whose religion opposed this (eg Quakers).

Ammosexuals sometimes think there was no right to bear arms prior to 2A, this couldn't be further from the truth, not only were there plenty of guns but as explained above men could be compelled by law to own them.

I'm not a lawyer but I can see how the 2008 SCOSA decision really morphed the original concept of 2A by making it about personal security, this was never what it was about historically.


This. So back then folks were worried the guns of war would be unavailable to everyone when The British, French or Hottentots came to get us. The hardcore war stuff was to be well-regulated at an armory but no one would get fewer guns -- in other words everyone's armory would be totally stocked and ready for gumption.

We missed out. We COULD'VE had armory days where we all met and had a picnic and practiced shooting firearms. BUT NO!

/ We can't have nice things.
 
2022-05-26 6:17:16 AM  

monsatano: qorkfiend: CrazyCurt: qorkfiend: CrazyCurt: What was written first :

The U.S. Constitution
Article I  Legislative Branch
Section 8 Powers of Congress
Clause 15 The Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
ArtI.S8.C15.1 Power to Call Forth the Militia
Clause 16 The Militia
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Are you ready ...? Because AS A LIBERTARIAN ( I am no longer ) I realized long ago that the FOLLOWING is an AMENDMENT! I.e. a clarification.

Second Amendment  Bearing and Keeping Arms
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.

Put those laws into perspective. The guns of war were to be kept at armories ( as was the onion belt ways of the time ), they were to be well-regulated and they were to be available to anyone as need to fulfill ARTICLE FARKING 1 SECTION 8, Congress!!!!

/ Dumbfarks, it's right there in writing.

Great. The problem is that no one is required to pay attention to your personal interpretation, so expressing it and saying it's the correct one is entirely farking irrelevant.

Oh but it is relevant due to the supreme court case that "clarified" it, Steve. The very fact that a Conservative court from Eisen-farking-hower's day certainly had nothing to do with Barret v U.S.

/ Try harder Mr. Bannon

Are you on the Supreme Court? No? Alrighty then.

Is being a SC justice a requirement for posting in this thread?

No? Oh, ok, then you should just shut the fark up anyway


No, but it is for getting your opinion of the 2nd amendment to actually have an effect.

For fark's sake, people. The problem is not that Republicans simply haven't been presented with a convincing argument and that once they do they'll come around.
 
2022-05-26 6:22:08 AM  
qorkfiend:

I am pretty certain I presented a convincing argument regarding Article 1: section 8 clauses 15-16.

/ How 'bout you, Steve?
 
2022-05-26 7:36:45 AM  
 
2022-05-26 7:51:10 AM  
The impetus behind the original states-rights people (Jefferson's Republicans) was that a national military was far too expensive, a draft made a mockery of freedom, and a national military would be easily taken over were a despot to come into power. The Republicans preferred state militias. That's the reasoning behind the second amendment. We now have a national military. The second amendment is obsolete.
 
2022-05-26 9:23:19 AM  
Both the 1st and 2nd amendment, as they are currently interpreted, should be abolished. We can have them back when we decide corporations aren't people, money isn't speech, your religious beliefs can't be forced onto others, and guns should only be available to well trained, organized people for defense of the country.
 
2022-05-26 9:31:33 AM  

Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: mikalmd: How about a federal law of " Use a gun for any crime , you get life without parole " ..

Great plan! That will totally deter gunmen who count on getting shot by the cops. Not to mention the huge impact it will have on murder-suicides, terrorists, and people who commit capital crimes.


Because, of course, unless we can come up will a law that will stop all gun violence, there's no point in making any laws that might stop some gun violence.

\just got done listening to some right-wing asshole who made that justification as to why no new gun laws should be made, when the interviewer pointed out most of the recent mass shootings have been made by teenagers.
 
2022-05-26 9:33:29 AM  

Ivo Shandor: [womensvoicesmedia.org image 515x720]


Unfortunately the current SC just uses the Constitution as an excuse to justify what ever decision they came up with before hand. They learned to do that by being Christians.
 
2022-05-26 9:56:20 AM  

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: BigMax: Repealing the Second Amendment would be nice and I support it. However, it is politically impossible at this time. Getting 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House and then getting the legislative action approved by 38 States is an impossible barrier.

It is like the Electoral College. We should assume we are stuck with it.

However, we are not stuck with the current judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. So the most practical road to gun control is electing Presidents and Senators who oppose unregulated gun rights to slow shift the Supreme Court to that position.

It sucks. It's wrong and it will take forever to get to a better place. But dreams of repealing the Second Amendment are a waste of time.

(And don't suggest a Constitutional Convention - I can only imagine that as a disaster as the Right goes after the First Amendment).

I'm tellin' ya, get every black man and woman, every leftist and atheist to open carry heavy weaponry, and the 2nd amendment will disappear faster than a Big Mac in front of TFG.


Still waiting for the NRA to protest in favor of Philando Castile, a man murdered by police while safely and legally exercising his right to bear arms.

Somehow I expect that I will be waiting forever.
 
2022-05-26 10:08:51 AM  

Dear Jerk: The impetus behind the original states-rights people (Jefferson's Republicans) was that a national military was far too expensive, a draft made a mockery of freedom, and a national military would be easily taken over were a despot to come into power. The Republicans preferred state militias. That's the reasoning behind the second amendment. We now have a national military. The second amendment is obsolete.


There was also the logistical problem of commanding and moving armies around in a vast, mostly empty new nation, on unpaved, muddy roads.  Provisioning and quartering large numbers of troops was highly impractical.  The typical solution was to impose on the locals but this was very unpopular, leading to the creation of the 3rd Amendment right on the heels of the 2nd, which prohibits these impositions except in times of war.  Taken together along with the relevant clauses of Article 1 Section 8, it's abundantly clear that the Founders were laying out rules for national defense.  Out of necessity, it had to be localized and made up of self sufficient citizens, not standing armies.  But as you note, all of this is obsolete now.  A1S8 clauses 15 & 16 (militias) and 11 (letters of marque) along with 2A and 3A no longer make any sense in our modern world.  Individuals wandering around with enough firepower and technology to commit mass murders was never anywhere near the intent of what the founders were thinking about.
 
2022-05-26 10:19:49 AM  

BigMax: Repealing the Second Amendment would be nice and I support it. However, it is politically impossible at this time. Getting 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House and then getting the legislative action approved by 38 States is an impossible barrier.

It is like the Electoral College. We should assume we are stuck with it.

However, we are not stuck with the current judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. So the most practical road to gun control is electing Presidents and Senators who oppose unregulated gun rights to slow shift the Supreme Court to that position.

It sucks. It's wrong and it will take forever to get to a better place. But dreams of repealing the Second Amendment are a waste of time.

(And don't suggest a Constitutional Convention - I can only imagine that as a disaster as the Right goes after the First Amendment).


Agree with this.  There really is no need at all to repeal 2A.  The language in 2A as well as A1S8 already gives the federal and state governments broad powers to regulate, organize and discipline the militia, i.e. everyone with a gun.  No other right is more explicitly called out and limited in this way.  Gun regulations are, and always  have been, part of the original intent.  Prior to Heller, this was well understood.  Heller created a right to self-defense out of whole cloth and then tried to glom it onto a collective right regarding militias and state security.  it's always been a poor fit that ignores all history as well as modern realities.
 
2022-05-26 10:55:46 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: mikalmd: How about a federal law of " Use a gun for any crime , you get life without parole " ..

Great plan! That will totally deter gunmen who count on getting shot by the cops. Not to mention the huge impact it will have on murder-suicides, terrorists, and people who commit capital crimes.

Because, of course, unless we can come up will a law that will stop all gun violence, there's no point in making any laws that might stop some gun violence.

\just got done listening to some right-wing asshole who made that justification as to why no new gun laws should be made, when the interviewer pointed out most of the recent mass shootings have been made by teenagers.


We've tried harsh mandatory sentences in the past. Did it fix the problem? No. We already have sentence enhancers for use of a firearm in a crime. Did it fix the problem? No.

America imprisons more people than any other nation. Why do people always assume that throwing more people in prison, for longer, will solve the problems that weren't solved the last time we tried it? Going after the end users and not the source is like fighting meth by arresting the users and not the dealers.

We need new gun laws but not bad ones. The majority of criminals got their guns from private party sales, so start with mandatory background checks. The government isn't allowed to maintain transaction records which makes identifying gun runners and straw purchasers almost impossible, so allow the ATF to see that Mr Green of New York buys handguns from 20 different Georgia gun shops in a single weekend once a month. Better yet put a monthly transaction cap for non-FFL holders. 99% of gun owners wouldn't care about only buying 2 guns a month, but the gun runners do. Allow civil liability if a gun isn't reported stolen before being used in a crime (obviously if it's stolen 2 hours before, that doesn't count but none of this "I only reported it stolen when the police showed up asking why it was at the scene of a homicide" crap)

There are plenty of laws that could reduce gun violence, but doubling-down on the mistakes of the past doesn't help.
 
2022-05-26 2:18:45 PM  
You want gun control? Give every black person you know a gun and have them open carry.  There will be 10 new gun control bills before lunch.
 
2022-05-26 3:34:05 PM  

PluckYew: You want gun control? Give every black person you know a gun and have them open carry.  There will be 10 new gun control bills before lunch.


It worked in the past.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/joshuamanson/gun-control-history-race-black-panther-party-conservatives
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.