# At The Demonstartion Against The NRA. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2018, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805 "2018-04-20T18:27:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/201 "2018-04-23T17:38:16Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > By an objective measure, the Constitution of 1791 failed in 1861, and did so because it failed to resolve the matter of slavery through Constitutional means. That matter was resolved through brute military force. Furthermore, the anti-slavery Amendments that followed were achieved at a time when the Union stripped Southern states of their political power. Even so, the South managed to find ways to establish an apartheid society, mainly through the use of white Christian nationalist terrorism. The Constitution didn’t change during the time of Jim Crow; attitudes did, and the Court jurists finally decided on their own accord to change with them. But there was nothing in the Constitution that “succeeded”. You could argue that the Constitution was flexible enough to enable this sort of change, but the problem you have is that a new generation of judges could decide that making American great again means swinging back in the opposite direction. That’s not really a strong Constitution, then - at least not as it pertains to the protection of fundamental rights and liberties. More fundamentally, it’s testament to the fact that the Constitution relies on thinking that is more than two centuries old and perhaps needs some updating. Thank you. And [the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments did NOT get a lot of support from white Southern men.](http://www.mshistorynow.mdah.ms.gov/articles/204/reconstruction-in-mississippi-1865-1876) In fact, just to prepare the 13th Amendment, which was submitted by Congress for Ratification while War was raging and the states in rebellion had no Congressional seats, Abe Lincoln personally resorted to much bribery and coercion: > [@Thaddeus Stevens](#): > > … the greatest measure of the nineteenth century was passed by corruption aided and abetted by the purest man in America. > [@XT](#): > > And we have evidence that the Constitution can be changed without a civil war, and in fact that an amendment can be brought in and later modified to nullify the parts that society no longer finds useful. We don’t need to have a civil war to modify the Constitution. Wrong. The early Bill of Rights was a special case, negotiated in tandem with the Constitution. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were ratified only because after the Civil War, when southern states were still defiantly opposed to anti-slavery measures, _federal authorities stepped in_, removing some legislators, waiving the 2/3 requirement on a Constitution, etc. (Mississippi finally ratified the 13th Amendment in … 2013.) Is that how Democrats are going to repeal the Second Amendment? By sending in federal troops to disband legislatures across the South? :eek: Even the Twenty-fourth Amendment, part of Reconstruction really since it outlawed the racist poll tax, was ratified by only one (1) Southern state: Tennessee. That was in 1964, 101 years after the Emancipation and the year after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream. Only Arizona and Wyoming showed solidarity with the southern racists by refusing to ratify. That Amendment needed 38 states and got exactly 38 states. It couldn’t be ratified today: Indiana, Utah, the Dakotas etc. would be eager to show solidarity with haters and improve GOP electoral outcomes. So exactly which controversial Amendments have been ratified easily, **XT**? Any that you think might have a chance in today’s divided America? In the last 46 years, we’ve had one (1) Amendment ratified: > [@Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America](#): > > No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. Were there a lot of marchers in Washington pleading for Congressmen’s right to give themselves pay hikes? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/202 "2018-04-23T17:42:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Nothing in _Miller_ was overturned. What precedent do you think was overturned? From justice Steven’s dissent in Heller (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question. > > \ > > In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “\*n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. **The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.** > > ``` > Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;2 we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).3 **No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.** > > ``` > > SOURCE: [DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/203 "2018-04-23T18:05:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > From justice Steven’s dissent in Heller (bolding mine): The key word being “_dissent_”, which means his argument _lost._ ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/204 "2018-04-23T18:13:55Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > From justice Steven’s dissent in Heller (bolding mine): > [@Stevens Dissent](#): > > The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons That wasn’t the holding in _Miller_. Have you read it? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/205 "2018-04-23T18:30:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That wasn’t the holding in _Miller_. Have you read it? Nope. I thought citing a supreme court justice saying it in a published dissent was authoritative enough and safe enough to pass along. So you are not disagreeing with me really. You are disagreeing with justice Stevens (which is fine). I think it is safe to assume he read Miller. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/206 "2018-04-23T18:33:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The key word being “_dissent_”, which means his argument _lost._ It also means flip one seat and this can be reversed since it was a 5-4 decision. That’s one reason why republicans stole a supreme court nomination. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/207 "2018-04-23T18:36:12Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It also mean flip one seat and this can be reversed since it was a 5-4 decision. Rarely does SCOTUS work this way. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/208 "2018-04-23T18:38:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Nope. I thought citing a supreme court justice saying it in a published dissent was authoritative enough and safe enough to pass along. > > So you are not disagreeing with me really. You are disagreeing with justice Stevens (which is fine). I think it is safe to assume he read Miller. You made the statement that 70 years of precedent was overturned with Heller and to the extent that you are adopting the rationale in Stevens’ dissent, I am disagreeing with you. Coincidentally, the entire authoritative law of the United States also disagrees with you. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/209 "2018-04-23T18:54:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You made the statement that 70 years of precedent was overturned with Heller and to the extent that you are adopting the rationale in Stevens’ dissent, I am disagreeing with you. Coincidentally, the entire authoritative law of the United States also disagrees with you. I do not know why but you are really hard to understand. I see the words, they are English in proper sentences and I still have trouble parsing what you are on about. Are you saying Stevens did not suggest precedent was overturned with Heller when Stevens’ said: - "In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “(i)n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. \ In this dissent I shall first explain why our decision in Miller was faithful to the text of the Second Amendment and the purposes revealed in its drafting history. I shall then comment on the postratification history of the Amendment, which makes abundantly clear that the Amendment should not be interpreted as limiting the authority of Congress to regulate the use or possession of firearms for purely civilian purposes. - And since Miller was roughly 70 years prior to Heller that’s where you get the 70 years. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/210 "2018-04-23T18:56:03Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The “Supreme Court is the Word of God” approach is vastly simplistic. The Heller decision was a 5-4 decision undertaken by a profoundly politicized Supreme Court, including members who were appointed by folks whose campaigns were hugely supported by the gun manufacturer’s lobby. > > So, yes: the current interpretation of the second amendment belittles and dismisses the actual text of the amendment. But that’s not the most reasonable interpretation. It’s the interpretation that resulted from a decades-long campaign of misinformation and political manipulation–and even then, a single changed vote would have (correctly) torpedoed that interpretation. I want to repeat this, because these sort of simplistic arguments keep popping up: > [@DrDeth](#): > > The key word being “_dissent_”, which means his argument _lost._ > [@Bone](#): > > That wasn’t the holding in _Miller_. Have you read it? > [@Bone](#): > > You made the statement that 70 years of precedent was overturned with Heller and to the extent that you are adopting the rationale in Stevens’ dissent, I am disagreeing with you. Coincidentally, the entire authoritative law of the United States also disagrees with you. Yes: due to the politicized nature of a Supreme Court with a majority of members appointed by presidents with campaigns supported/funded by the gun manufacturing lobby, we have a bare majority on the court who claims that Miller wasn’t overturned. That doesn’t mean that Miller wasn’t overturned, though, and an appeal to authority here is fallacious if we’re discussing the **theory** of the case. If we’re discussing what actually happened, well, yes: the folks with the power tell use we’ve never been at war with EastAsia, so I suppose that’s the official position. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/211 "2018-04-23T18:58:04Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The part that says that federal laws are supreme. The feds aren’t supreme if the states can just withdraw from the Union whenever they feel like it. OK, I disagree. Unless there is actually a federal law saying states can’t secede, it is not “quite clear” on that issue. The federal government only has those powers explicitly given to it by the states. That power was not explicitly given in 1860. The feds aren’t supreme; they don’t have plenary power. Federal law, once codified, is supreme. There is a difference. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/212 "2018-04-23T19:12:39Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Yes: due to the politicized nature of a Supreme Court with a majority of members appointed by presidents with campaigns supported/funded by the gun manufacturing lobby, we have a bare majority on the court who claims that Miller wasn’t overturned. That doesn’t mean that Miller wasn’t overturned, though, and an appeal to authority here is fallacious if we’re discussing the **theory** of the case. Got a cite that Reagan and the Bushes campaigns were "funded’ by the gun lobby? The gun lobby is rather tiny, the amount they could provide was just a drop in the bucket. When discussing SCOTUS cases, you have to know what the Court decided. By no means is this a “appeal to authority”. In any case, you are using “appeal to authority " here as a fallacy incorrectly, as citing a credible authority is by no means a fallacy\*. Saying that Justice Scalia hates lima beans, thus lima beans are nasty, is a 'appeal to authority” as learned as the Justice is, he is not a credible expert on legumes. - if citing a credible authority was incorrect, Great Debates would be 100% opinions. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/213 "2018-04-23T19:14:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I do not know why but you are really hard to understand. I see the words, they are English in proper sentences and I still have trouble parsing what you are on about. > > Are you saying Stevens did not suggest precedent was overturned with Heller when Stevens’ said: > > - "In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “(i)n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. > > \ > > In this dissent I shall first explain why our decision in Miller was faithful to the text of the Second Amendment and the purposes revealed in its drafting history. I shall then comment on the postratification history of the Amendment, which makes abundantly clear that the Amendment should not be interpreted as limiting the authority of Congress to regulate the use or possession of firearms for purely civilian purposes. > > - > > And since Miller was roughly 70 years prior to Heller that’s where you get the 70 years. Yes, his [dissenting] opinion was that precedent was overturned. That opinion was not shared by the majority, and it’s the majority’s opinion that matters. Look at the [majority opinion:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court held: > > \ > > None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. **United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes** , but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Citing a dissenting opinion as precedent is a non-starter. Two justices dissented in _Roe_. Can we say that it’s established precedent that states may make abortion illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/214 "2018-04-23T19:28:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **John Mace** : > > OK, I disagree. Unless there is actually a federal law saying states can’t secede, it is not “quite clear” on that issue. So, tell me then. What does it mean for laws to be supreme, if the states are allowed to completely ignore them? Because of course a legally-seceded state (if such a thing were to exist) would no longer be bound by any of the laws of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/215 "2018-04-23T19:33:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I do not know why but you are really hard to understand. I see the words, they are English in proper sentences and I still have trouble parsing what you are on about. > > Are you saying Stevens did not suggest precedent was overturned with Heller when Stevens’ said: That difficulty may be local in nature. Sure Stevens suggested that precedent was overturned, but he was wrong. He was wrong because the question of whether or not precedent was overturned is a legal one, and since his opinion did not carry the day, it’s not reflective of the legal landscape that exists today, or at the time the opinion was issued. It’s pretty much a slam dunk, from a legal point of view. You’re arguing the losing side, in a case that’s already been adjudicated. The prevailing opinion rejects your and Stevens’ interpretation which means as a factual matter your statement that \*Heller \*overturned 70 years of precedent is false. If you’re arguing that the dissent should have prevailed, and then in some hypothetical scenario things would have played out differently, then have at it. But if you assert that precedent was overturned that’s a question of fact and you are mistaken. You said you haven’t read _Miller_, but [here is the holding](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174): > [@](#): > > The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held: > > 1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 177. > > 2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 178. > > The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. Summarized, this was about the particular weapon, not the status of the men accused of violating the NFA. If it were about connection to militia service, it would be dispositive to indicate that the men accused were not members of the militia. Instead, an incomplete analysis was done to show that the short barreled shotgun in question was not regularly used in the militia or part of ordinary military equipment. But if you want the authoritative rebuttal of Stevens’ position, it was in the part of the[prevailing opinion (my bold)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html) > [@](#): > > ``` > Justice Stevens places overwhelming reliance upon this Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) . “[H]undreds of judges,” we are told, “have relied on the view of the amendment we endorsed there,” post, at 2, and “[e]ven if the textual and historical arguments on both side of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself … would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law,” post, at 4. And what is, according to Justice Stevens, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.” Post, at 2. > > ``` > > Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of Justice Stevens’ case. **Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.** The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. \*\*Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” \*\*307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right. > > ``` > This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). **Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.** Justice Stevens can say again and again that Miller did “not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,” post, at 42–43, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise. The most Justice Stevens can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor General’s argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective, see Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, pp. 4–5. Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. > > ``` > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I want to repeat this, because these sort of simplistic arguments keep popping up: > > Yes: due to the politicized nature of a Supreme Court with a majority of members appointed by presidents with campaigns supported/funded by the gun manufacturing lobby, we have a bare majority on the court who claims that Miller wasn’t overturned. That doesn’t mean that Miller wasn’t overturned, though, and an appeal to authority here is fallacious if we’re discussing the **theory** of the case. > > If we’re discussing what actually happened, well, yes: the folks with the power tell use we’ve never been at war with EastAsia, so I suppose that’s the official position. It keeps popping up because as a factual matter, the positions advanced by **Whack-a-Mole** have been false. Post #59 where he asserted that SCOTUS said we can ban all weapons except the guns you could buy in 1791, and in post#198 where he asserted that 70 years of precedent was overturned\*. As a matter of fact, those assertions are false. Do you also believe that _Miller_ was not overturned in reality, or just in the woulda/shoulda/coulda sense? Like I said, if the arguments are hypothetical then sure, we can go down the rabbit hole. But if the conclusions and arguments in any hypothetical are predicated on a foundation that is false, then that renders everything that follows suspect. \*also post 206 with the stolen SCOTUS nomination, but that seems less like an assertion of fact than an expression of opinion so I’ll leave that out. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/216 "2018-04-23T19:34:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Got a cite that Reagan and the Bushes campaigns were "funded’ by the gun lobby? The gun lobby is rather tiny, the amount they could provide was just a drop in the bucket. While the gun lobby itself is not tiny - and I mean the entire gun lobby, not just the gun _manufacturer’s_ lobby but all the gun owners and advocates as well - I have to agree that the notion that particularly the Bush family needed money from the gun lobby for their campaign. That would be pissing into the ocean. The Bushes are old Yankee Bluebloods. Don’t know about Reagan. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/217 "2018-04-23T19:48:29Z")
The gun lobby can offer a bit of money, but their main stock in trade? Rabid one-issue voters. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/218 "2018-04-23T19:49:24Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > So, tell me then. What does it mean for laws to be supreme, if the states are allowed to completely ignore them? Because of course a legally-seceded state (if such a thing were to exist) would no longer be bound by any of the laws of the United States. Here’s the thing. You are making an inference based on your interpretation of what it means for laws to be supreme, and then claiming that it’s “quite clear”. It was debatable, and it was debated, at the time. If you want to invoke the Supremacy Clause, one can simply argue that the laws are supreme as long as the states are part of the union. As I noted, there was no law explicitly stating that secession was illegal. And there is nothing explicitly stating this in the constitution, either. Had the South won the war, or had the North simply given up, then most of us would agree, today, that secession was legal in the same sense that the Founders argued that separation from Britain was legal in 1776. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/219 "2018-04-23T19:56:02Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Try to ban anything, the NRA screams “Second Amendment!”, collects a few million more in contributions from the gun industry and makes statements to their base that border on incitement. > > The NRA position is pretty much “there will be no new laws about guns and in fact, we’re going to roll back the existing ones.” So I don’t know how anyone could claim that they are not saying that first sentence above. I didn’t claim anything. I asked you who was saying what you said people were saying. Your response is a simple hand-waving that “it’s obvious” and then you move the goalpost from “make any laws about guns” to “ban” guns. When you decide where the goalpost’s permanent position is, please provide a cite that backs up that position. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805/220 "2018-04-23T20:00:58Z")
> [@Jacquernagy](#): > > While the gun lobby itself is not tiny - and I mean the entire gun lobby, not just the gun _manufacturer’s_ lobby but all the gun owners and advocates as well - I have to agree that the notion that particularly the Bush family needed money from the gun lobby for their campaign. That would be pissing into the ocean. The Bushes are old Yankee Bluebloods. Don’t know about Reagan. Ture, if you count the gun owners, the gun side is pretty strong. But I dunno if you can count individuals as a “lobby” we normally call them “voters”. However, he specified gun manufacturers lobby, which is rather tiny in the big picture. Reagan was no friend to the gun lobby: [https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/republicans-didnt-always-march-to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/](https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/republicans-didnt-always-march-to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/) So pretty much his assertion that the Heller Supreme Court was bought and paid for by the gun manufacturers lobby is totally false. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-the-demonstartion-against-the-nra/812805.md?page=12)