We don’t. The right of the people, not the right of the armed forces - you already cited that the FF thought of the militias as distinct from the army. That’s why it says “people”, not their representatives - the people themselves.
So the Supreme Court inventing a rationale means that their decision is incorrect - is that right? It has to appear in the Constitution itself, or else it is not legitimate. (Not that it matters - the RtKaBA really does appear in the Constitution in so many words, but I would like to get a clear statement of the principle.)
So your position is: A Supreme Court decision that mentions a rationale not explicitly in the Constitution is invalid and illegitimate. Got it.
No, not when they wrote the amendment. They did change their minds about a standing army very soon afterward, but still afterward. Then the military role became theirs, not the militias’. The militias are now the National Guard and have been for over a century, btw, not just any bunch of yahoos with a grievance against Da Gummint. Do please try to be consistent with the historical record.
It’s authoritative but still wrongly decided, yes. This may be a shock, but there’s a reason they themselves say “We’re not last because we’re right, we’re right because we’re last”. Sometimes they even admit it and change their minds!
If you had some rationale to support the ruling as intellectually legitimate, you’d certainly have provided it here instead of spluttering, wouldn’t you?
Well, goody goody for you. ‘I’m honest, but I like hanging around with liars.’ Here’s your cookie.
Well yeah, now it does. But it didn’t before this past week, yet I was called a ‘gun grabber’ more times than I can remember.
This has been my ‘fuck it’ moment. If I’m gonna be called a gun grabber no matter what sort of minimal gun control measures I propose, then fuck it, I’ll support literally grabbing guns.
Like I said: what are your friends gonna say about me now, for actually wanting to grab guns, that’s any worse than when I just wanted a few commonsense restrictions on future sales? Nyaah, nyaah!
If, say, the Amendment had spelled out that, a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of that Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed — well, then, I’d have a hard time disagreeing with you.
But, of course, that’s not how it was written. Why do you think that is?
So is your problem here that background checks for sales at gun shows would be onerous? Or are you against the notion that there should be background checks at all, but you gun-lovers tolerate background checks by licensed dealers in return for everyone else being exempt?
Just trying to understand where you’re coming from.
Waldo: Because at the time *every *adult (white) male was subject to (temporary) conscription in his state’s militia, and was allowed or even expected to provide his own weapon. That too became moot with the establishment of the standing army and navy.
It’s illuminative, or should be, to look at the proto-Constitution that was actually in effect at the time, and most certainly would have influenced the thoughts of the people living under it, isn’t it? Here’s a fuller explanation from the Articles of Confederation:
The intention there seems clear enough. Does it make sense that it wouldn’t have been essentially continued in the new document?
That’s not at all what I just said. I don’t think it’s “extremely dishonest” to call people advocating for gun control “gun grabbers”. It’s a bit imprecise, for some of them, and I try to avoid imprecision, but it’s certainly no more imprecise than your own use of “gun-worshippers”.
No, but one place that that term has been thrown around aplenty is right here at the Dope, where we believe in fighting ignorance, not adding to the stockpile.
