Like I said, put “self-defense” in there. Got no issue with that.
The conflation of guns and self-defense is the problem for me. Naming a specific tool is idiotic to me. The end.
Imho it would be idiotic to not mention ownership/use of weapons if you are talking about militias.
A militia need not be composed of men who own their weapons and keep them at home, though it might have appeared so in 1789.
Well I suppose. But the specific point I’m addressing is whether a weapon/tool edict is a valid inclusion in an ideological statement.
What on earth kind of a question is this?
One with 9 words and a question mark. Similar to yours really.
Is there any conceivable scenario today in which such a case could arise? Nothing having to do with the National Guard would seem to present such a case. Neither would anything having to do with a private “militia” organization.
I’m thinking more anarchic/libertarian justification. Whereas the complementary statist policy would be significant gun restrictions or banning. (ETA: Both parties are quite statist in my mind. They just buy their votes differently. Dems use guns as a boogey man and Pubs use “gun grabbers” the same way, while trying to eliminate your freedoms via a different route. I’m not defending any “wing” here.)
That’s a separate issue. Overarching prison and justice system reform is imperative.
Giving a little power to the people doesn’t guarantee their dominance. Look at how little voting matters. But I wouldn’t suggest eliminating the franchise just because it doesn’t do much good anyway.
Thing is, I think the second amendment is very similar to the third: when it was written, it was highly relevant, given the contrast it drew between the nascent country and the colonies, but now it addresses a phantom menace.
Here is a 2012 example of the federal government disarming a state national guard:
Governors Take Dispute over Air National Guard Cuts to Congress
As to why the governors are not going to the Supreme Court, let’s start with the near-certainty that their constituents don’t want them to. But I think a true strict constructionist would see a real constitutional issue here. The federal government is grabbing arms from what sure looks to me like a well-regulated militia.
nm
Either you have a distorted view of what the traditional view of the right was or you don’t know what Feinstein’s views are.
The traditional right did not require a militia context, thats just what you want the right to be. The Utah version of the right is a lot closer to what we had for most of our history than the recently departed DC version of the right. It certainly was nothing close to what Feinstein thinks the right should be (i.e. banning of all private ownership of guns).
Then you must have misread what I said. I said there is no other right where the ACLU is seeking a more restrictive interpretation of a right rather than a broader interpretation of aright. Isn’t it clear that I was saying that the ACLU does not seek more restrictive readings of any right than what we have under current law outside of the second amendment. If your point is that there is SOMEONE to the left of the ACLU on almost every issue, then your statement seems meaningless.
The word gun doesn’t appear in the constitution. The word “arms” does. This generally means weapons, it is my hope one day that this right will apply to light sabers.
You mean the same Taiwan that would be part of a one state three systems China if they didn’t have barbaric Americans to watch their back (who knows for how much longer).
First of all, I don’t think 4 members of the Supreme court would consider your version of the right to be correct (they might be OK with banning (or heavily regulating) handguns as long as we could own shotguns and rifles). A lot of things are disputed by a significant number of people, it doesn’t make them controversial. Evolution and vaccination are disputed by a significant number of people, do you think these things are controversial?
And if we made all guns illegal tomorrow, we would still have about the same number of swat teams for generations to come.
Well, then you should be happy because that is the way that SCOTUS is interpreting the 2nd amendment. They talk about self defense (and reading between the lines, they mean effective self defense). Thats an idea that you seem to be OK with so you should be OK with where the law seems to be heading right now.
The founders realized they were fallible and if you can get 2/3rds of each chamber of congress and 3/4ths of the states to agree with you, you could get rid of the second amendment for good. Or is democracy not good enough for you?
The constitution doesn’t say the word guns. It talks about arms.
Then you should be pretty happy with where SCOTUS is heading. Self defense (and by this they mean effective self defense (which these days means a gun)) seems to be how they read the individual right.
That was ONE of the rationales. They also thought guns provided a bulwark against tyranny. They didn’t really know how this experiment in democracy was going to work out. Right now, it seems like we probably don’t need guns to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.
Thats what the supreme court seems to be doing.
In today’s day and age, self defense means guns. Hopefully, one day it will mean phasers and light sabers.
I remember it happening during Katrina as well.
Are ANG fighters owned by the states? I thought they (along with lots of other expensive assets) were owned by the feds and placed with state units. Is it still “grabbing” if they own the planes in the first place?
Nope–I understand the traditional view of the right and Feinstein’s view. If you disagree, you’ll want to put your argument forth.
US Vs. Miller disagrees with you.
Of course 4 members of the Supreme Court agree with “my version” (i.e., the idea that the second amendment applies to militias)–did you not read the dissent linked above? That decision was 5-4; it’s hard for a SC decision to be more controversial than that. ANalogizing to antivaxxers is just stupid.
True. Anti-vaxers might be vocal, but they are a small minority. (True insofar as the analogy is flawed; I don’t endorse “stupid.”)
Er… but Roe v. Wade was a 5-4 decision.
Yes, yes it was. And abortion and its constitutional protection is a highly controversial topic in our society, right?
Yup.
And politically useless.
Okay. Maybe I should let this drop, but I’m genuinely confused–why is this significant? Did you think I was using the word “controversial” in some other sense? Did you think I was unaware that abortion protection is a controversial issue in the United States and in judicial circles? What am I missing, that makes this a relevant point?