During the 18th century and on into most of the 19th, American settlers on the frontiers occasionally had armed and hostile Native Americans attacking to deal with.
Funny how you avoided this part:
Good luck with that.
You are lying, or speaking from ignorance - not once did the SC hold the 2nd to apply to a right necessarily associated with a person's relationship to the militia.
Yes - lets!
Nowhere does the court in Presser or Cruikshank hold, or even imply, that for the individuals in question to enjoy to the protection of the 2nd, they had to have some relationship to the militia, well-regulated or otherwise.
Nowhere has the court ever held any differently; Heller overturned exactly ZERO previous SC decisions.
See above - you cannot cite a single SC decision overturned by Heller.
We all do
It's hard to believe that Trump has been alive for almost 1/3 of our entire countries history. 80/250 = 3
you too bobo?....
sealybobo is an idiot.
what gave it away?....
well......
History and content of it's posts.
No it's the fact that I call Harry out for being one of you when he tries so desperately to pretend he doesn't.
the intent was that all males should be armed, now it should include females.
That's one aspect of scope. I'm sure my ideas would be far too narrow and restrictive for any right winger, so compromises will have to be made on both sides. Thing about 2A's language, arms were a part of frontier life, and i doubt the language of 2A was meant to disallow women to bear arms on their property against against intruders and attackers. Guns were are part of that universe as were cows and horses, both of which need not have been raised to a 'right'. This is why it was militia-centric, it's a military focused amendment. Since that no longer applies, it needs revision.
Nope. You need a new amendment and the chances of that are pretty close to zero.
My comment wasn't about the unrealistic aspect of it, it was about the principle of it. 2A is an anachronism as written, on that point there is no doubt.
Like the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments, the 2nd amendment, both in terms of the right and the protection afforded to it, is defined by jurisprudence. Since 1939, said jurisprudence has gone a long way to create these definitions, and this will likely continue to be the case as the court hands down more rulings in the near future.
You cannot be more wrong, for in its plain text, it does exactly that.
Feel free to provide an example of such modernization, and demonstrate the necessity of therms found therein -- that is, why the change must be made, keeping in mind existing jurisprudence.
There's zero chance the "right wing" will agree to amending the 2nd Amendment in any way you will find acceptable, and there's zero argument it has to compromise in this matter-- as it takes just 13 states to stop an amendment, the 'right wing' has more than enough power to tell you to FO, leaving you without recourse.
Scholars have and you need to take a break.
