No, but only because the text of the Constitution doesn’t say anything about (b). But seeing as the Supreme Court says that B is in the Constitution, I have to believe that textualism is not the only way allowed to look at the Constitution, and, without that, I can easily argue that Constitution doesn’t mean what it literally says.
Is this significant of something?
Yes, I live in the wickedly repressed land of your forefathers, where we can’t even carry catapults any more.
You should see the place since we started losing all our colonies, it’s like a dystopic wasteland.
Of course.
But since the Supreme Court has also said that the Second Amendment supports an individual federal right to bear arms (DC v Heller) and is incorporated against the states (Macdonald v. Chicago) that means that there’s individual federal right to bear arms and it’s incorporated against the states.
Correct?
Yes, I imagine it is important to you. Birds gotta fly, trolls gotta troll.
You remind me of another boastful UK petty criminal we had here a while back. Ivan Astikov liked to troll gun threads too. He lasted a little longer than I think you’re going to. In your brief career here, you’ve done little but fail hard and collect warnings.
Tell you what, though. If I ever need advice on how to be a drug-peddling punk, I’ll be sure to look you up.
I’m as anti-gun as they come, and the OP was certainly poisoning the well.
The OP needs a better understanding of what poisoning the well means, because John Stamos’ Left Ear did it obviously and with such heavy handedness that it could be a literal textbook example. How in the world could anyone expect a reasonable discussion to follow that?
There is nothing in that post that I would disagree with.
It should not be too surprising that the mindset of the Founders, rooted firmly in the 18th century, would see certain things to be of paramount importance that, to us, seem oddly out of place. Quartering troops? Glad they got that one covered! What’s actually astounding how seldom that does occur. I happen to think the 2nd amendment is one of those things. Too bad most of our fellow countrymen and women still don’t think so.
By showing a good example and having an intelligent discusion on the subject dispite the well poisoning?
I will jump in on this. I am pretty liberal politics wise and a gun owner, handguns, rifles and shotguns plus about to buy an assault rifle and take the concealed carry class. Welcome to Texas. I practice and maintain my weapons. I am responsible and safe. I never want to shoot anyone and hope I never will.
Here is the reality, there are at least 300 million firearms in this country. In the little gun control experiment you remove the guns from us the law abiding and leave them in the hands of criminals. So let me ask you after the legal guns are removed from the market how is the inner city any better? You still have about the same number of illegal guns and now the criminals know that everyone but the criminals are unarmed. That is going to work out well for the criminals.
Now, there are laws that are not well enforced well, this should be fixed. If you are not legally able to own a gun Hell should freeze over before you get one. Straw buy, you should go to prison. Mentally unstable no gun for you. These laws already exist but need to be well enforced.
Just my two cents
Capt
I have to agree with this notion here, so turning around and accusing the guy accusing him of poisoning the well, isn’t going to be productive. In my view, it looks like both sides are poisoning the well and talking about stuff that doesn’t really address the problem. For instance, a lot of the gun control people will argue that the second amendment doesn’t protect an individual right, but even if they’re correct, that doesn’t mean that individual gun ownership is a bad idea and that banning guns will make everyone safer. Similarly, the pro gun people will argue that the second amendment guarantees protection of individual gun ownership, but that doesn’t address the idea that the law may need some modernization and there may be some laws that might do some good.
I think the whole argument about guns would get a lot simpler if we could leave the second amendment out of the discussion, leave private gun ownership out of the discussion and get to the root cause of where the violence is coming from. As it stands, but connecting the issues such that lessening urban violence is on one side and self protection and rural traditions are on the other, whichever side you’re on, the otherside looks bad because they either look like they don’t care about urban violence and gangs or they look like they have no regard for personal protection, and when you throw in constitutional law on that, it just gets messier.
So I think a better place to start would be for the gun control lobby to more or less concede that the second amendment does guarantee a personal right to own guns, but to argue that we have amended the constitution and that there are some laws they think might make a difference. Similarly, I think the pro gun lobby ought to concede that just because it’s in the constitution doesn’t mean that it’s how it always should be (eg, slavery) and that just saying we have that right doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reconsider it, but at the same time there’s a lot of laws on the books or proposed laws that do little or nothing to stop gun crimes and just hurt the law abiding citizen.
And personally speaking, I don’t think banning guns is a good idea. I think a law like one gun a month doesn’t really do anything, since it only takes one gun to commit a crime, but does hurt collectors who might want to buy several guns at once and then not buy any more for a while. On the other hand, while I’m not a fan of waiting periods, I can at least concede that it might prevent someone from making a snap decision, but if I feel I need one for personal protection or hunting, I’m going to plan ahead. There ought to be reasonable concessions for a lot of these sorts of points, and scaring people, either about gangs roaming the streets with guns robbing everyone or that the government is going to steal our guns and enact a socialist distopia aren’t helping anyone and just galvanizing us against reaching a solution that’ll make everyone safer while protecting their rights.
jimmieswellrustled.jpg
Point of clarity. You’re attempting to muddy the water by assigning modern definitions to a document written 220 years ago.
In the vocabulary of the time, regulated meant properly functioning, such as in a regulated clock. As applied to people it meant well trained and coordinated.
And as to militia…
The Militia Act of 1792 defined militia in Section 1:
In other words, every white man in the country. In the interest of progress and equality this has now been expanded to include women and non-whites.
But since actually taking the writing in context doesn’t fit your argument I have no doubt that you will immediately disregard and never mention it again.
Thanks for the confession. Most trolls try to pretend they are not.
If speaking my mind and taking no shit makes me a troll, and especially if YOU say it too, I guess I must be guilty.
wat do now?
No taking pleasure in making statements in order to make peoples jimmies rustle makes you a troll. Its the definition.
What makes you think I’m taking pleasure out of it? Do you not think I can watch scumpup’s jimmies being rustled and view it dispassionately, nay, almost scientifically?
Are you projecting your own feelings onto me, perhaps?
Before this thread, I never knew what a scumpup was, so why would I give a fuck about rustling its jimmies?
I take it you also believe both are true, or both are necessarily false? And assuming you believe both are true, will vocally oppose any measures by the state to restrict abortion in the first trimester?
Gotta warn you, this place is full of pedantic snots. You kinda let yourself in for some. Such as your definition of “regulated” as if to exclude the sense of being legally restricted by one or another criteria. Some of the unbearably pissy dictionaries offer etymology as well as definitions, and one of these assholes are just sure to bring up something like the Online Etymology Dictionary’s take on “regulate”, available here:
Now, I just stone hate people who post dictionary definitions as a means to win an argument, so I thought it only fair to give you some warning. 'Cause, if you look, you’ll see it doesn’t offer your thesis a lot of comfort. And one of these guys is just bound to bring it up, they really can’t help themselves.
As well, your offering of a definition of “militia”, while enlightening, begs a couple of questions. Or maybe its the questions that are begging, was never clear on that.
Anyway, is there anything in that decree that obliges other legislative bodies to respect that definition, or any mechanism to enforce that? Does it, for instance, make that particular age range definitive? Or is it but one of several, or many, such decrees, no more definitive and puissant than any other.
See what I mean? You gotta watch out for guys like that, they’re all over the place, here.
Oh, yeah, some of these guys just live for a chance to use a word like “puissant”.
Alright, gun-confiscation nuts. So your position is that everything you believe is simply “common sense,” anyone who disagrees with you is a “nut,” anyone who points out your total lack of awareness about what the gun laws actually are is muddying the waters with irrelevancies, the supermajority of Americans who own or use guns on a regular basis without killing anyone are somehow not real people, and, most importantly of all, that there is an epidemic of mass shootings because you as a suburban watcher of network news can’t separate your easily manipulated feelings of fear from actual statistical reality.
Why do people feel that you are being at least a little bit disingenuous about your beliefs and goals regarding guns? I guess it’s just IMPOSSIBLE to figure it out. Must be because everyone but you is a violent idiot, I suppose.