I’d have to say it’s not a view that had any real chance of prevailing. There’s legitimate room for debate over some varying interpretations of the Second Amendment. But I don’t any ground within its text that would support a states right interpretation. The Constitution defines the “militia” as being under Congressional control at two other points. And it explicitly forbids the states from maintaing military forces. So the two realistic choices are either gun ownership is an individual right or gun ownership is a collective right with a federally controlled militia.
I just finished reading the linked article in the OP, and it appears that rather than arguing FOR a states-rights approach to the Second Amendment, it uses that as a rhetorical device to point out flaws with that theory. IOW, pretty much what I and Little Nemo said.
Not immune, just more resistant. A single corporation or other wealthy organization can’t overshadow the federal government the way it can a city, and it is much less powerful relative to the feds than to the states. As well, moving issues down to the state level breaks up the efforts of civil rights groups; divide and conquer. And the federal government is under more of a spotlight. The Right has always pushed for more “states rights” because that allows for greater corruption and more violations of civil rights.
No; it prevents locally powerful groups from crushing and exploiting people they don’t like.
Ah, a standard right wing defense; unless everyone in a (right wing) group is identical, you can’t criticize that group. Even if you are telling the truth, you don’t matter. What matters is what the vast majority of states rights supporters are like.
Assuming that to be true, why should I care? They also didn’t consider blacks human. Why should I care about their view of “state’s rights” more than I care about their view of race relations?
And the Civil War pretty much overturned whatever such intentions they had, anyway.
Since “states rights” in American politics is, exclusively, a code for anti-black racism, it has nothing to do with any side of the gun issue.
Says who? It is very convenient for your politics, but if I cite Publius and you cite Tench Coxe, how did you get to “accepted definition”?
It can mean anything you want, but it doesn’t mean ignore the rest of the sentence, which says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As part of a “well regulated militia”.
A man with a claw hammer can kill just as easy as a man with a gun, he just has to be closer.
A well working, independent militia comprised of able bodied men (and women) from. The ages of 17 up who use their own firearms to comprise it in time of need.
I won’t ignore the last half of the sentence if you won’t ignore the first half.
:rolleyes: There’s a reason they arm soldiers with guns and not claw hammers.
No he can’t. Which is why we no longer fight wars with hammers.
Well, I think the last army that used hammers was the barbarians and if my memory in history is correct, they were pretty victorious.
And yes, if you are 3 feet away with a hammer or a gun, you can still kill. The only true killer is a human with motive, what tool he/she uses is their discretion.
If the government took away firearms from it’s citizens ONLY THE LAW ABIDING WOULD TURN THEM IN. Do you really think criminals would just hand over their weapons? No, they would hear Cha CHING! in their heads with a big grin because now there is no opposition. Only terrorized unarmed people hoping the cops show up at the right time.
Which is one reason I do not advocate banning guns. Few people do. But you don’t have any constitutional right to own a rocket propelled grenade, or Stinger missile. Not even if YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS or even stamp your foot.
No one said we do.
Edit: maybe some people do. But I’ve not seen many/any of them.
Ok, I agree with you and am glad we think alike on that part. But what if I cross my arms and get “huffy”. (I don’t know why I wrote in all caps) I’m over it though.
Doesn’t matter; those law abiding citizens are the primary source of guns for those criminals. Did you think they were robbing the military?
As opposed to dead armed people, or the dead friends and relatives of those armed people. Do you really think you and your gun are going to scare criminals? Do you really think that you are going to beat some guy in a gunfight who will almost certainly shoot first, and likely from behind? Being a bad guy and all.
As far as crime goes, the only thing that America being awash in guns does is ensure that guns are easily available and commonly used by criminals. It doesn’t make you safer; it does make it easier to kill people by accident though.
The first half says ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’. I haven’t ignored it. It is straight forward. It doesn’t say anything about negating the second part. It doesn;t say ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except where it doesn’t apply to the militia’.
That simple clause states very explicitly that we need a well regulated militia to ensure our security, and that requires that people have the right to keep and bear arms, and no law can change that, save for an amendment to the constitution. I have never heard a reasonable explanation of why the first part somehow creates an exception to the second part. It doesn’t even allow wiggle room in the first part. The necessity of a well regulated militia is defined and can’t be overridden either. Without amendment, it states inequivocally that there is a necessity for a militia, and because of that necessity no law can deny the people the right keep and bear arms. It doesn’t say the militia has a right, or the state has a right, or that bears have a right, it says the people have a right, you, me, and those other guys.
Maybe they should have written it differently, but they didn’t.
New York State has a Militia, with both sea and air wings. That are not part of the national guard. Individual units of it have existed since before the Revolution.
I’m not seeing the threat here.
Small but persistent correction - Israel does not have a militia, and reservists don’t keep rifles in their homes.