CDZ How The Second Amendment Comes From Something That Happened In The 2nd Century BCE

[progressive hunter]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.

No, they were not.

The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,


NOT the Militia

Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.

The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.

That is your opinion.

no, that's a fact.

the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.

That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008.

It's been the 'status' since the Constitution was ratified, despite YOUR 'opinion'.

Deal with it.

You are wrong. All Supreme Court cases prior to Heller, stated that the second amendment DID NOT apply to the states or individuals, only to the national government. You can argue with me till the chickens come home to roost but that will not change past Supreme Court opinions.

The First Amendment wasn't surrendered to the will of the states...... Freedom of Religion wasn't left up to the states.....the Bill of Rights covered Rights in existence....

Like Willhavtawaite, you have a hard to time discerning fact from opinion. Your above post is completely wrong. Constitutional analysis can get very complicated, so I will just give a broad synopsis. The Bill of Rights were meant to restrain the federal government not the states. Despite the The Privileges or Immunities Clause, it was not until the passage of the 14th amendment that certain amendments under the Bill of Rights were applied to the states. The operative provision under the 14th amendment was the “due process clause.” The due process clause was used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. These rights that applied to the states were called fundamental rights.

As mentioned not all the amendments under the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

For instance, it was not until Duncan v. Louisiana in 1968 that the 6th amendment was applied to the states. The 6th amendment provides for jury trials in criminal matters.

Despite all the foot stomping and whining by conservatives on this issue, the second amendment never applied to the state or individuals until the Heller decision. Regardless, the Heller decision still left open the state to regulate firearms. Scalia wrote:

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sales.”

Now the interesting fact about Heller is that it uses the same logic as Roe v.Wade. It is the conservative version of Roe. The conservative court found “enumerated” rights in the Constitution to support their decision. Sound familiar?

There are still certain amendments that still do not apply to the states. The 7th amendment does not apply to the states. The 7th amendment calls for a jury trial for all all controversies over $20.00. That is why you can’t go to small claims court and demand a jury trial.

Mostly correct. AS I've said before, the Constitution has been abrogated to the extent it is no longer relevant any more; judges rule whatever they want, based on ideology, current fashion, and ideological whims. They're essentially useless as credible legal authorities and that has been the case since the Civil War and the following100= years of political hackery and corruption.

it not being relevant to you is your opinion and has no standing in the real world where it is very relevant,,

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

got a link to that??
cause 240 yrs of history say different,,,

No the history doesn't, which is why you and the rest of the cultists have nothing but ;lots of noise and no facts. The facts are the vast majority of references to 'the People' bearing arms are in terms of state militias, and those states determining who was a full citizen and who wasn't, usually involving property qualifications and skin color, social standing, etc. The first two cases involving the 2nd Amendment in US history were Cruikshank v US and its sister case Presser v Illinois, both of which weren't overturned until this Century, when a different gang of judges ruled based on their own whims as well, not precedent. Many debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were in terms of states rights, state control of officers, etc., and some as a state's defensive counter to a standing national Army oppressing a state against its will.

The rest of the rubbish is the same old nonsense, rinsed and repeated as if dong so will make it all true. Don't forget to wear your ruby slippers and visit the Wizard while you're at it.

are you ever going to post a link to something to back up your claims or just keep makin shit up and avoiding the facts I have presented???

I'm not posting for your sniveling demands, I'm posting for those in the Peanut Gallery who aren't too stupid to do their own homework, like reading the Constituti0nal Convention diaries and debates, the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist responses, the SC cases. You and your fellow cultists can continue wetting yourselves and crying all you want, no interest to me reading the same old simplistic infantile rubbish arguments for the umpteenth time. All you'll do is just post endless spam as usual.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

got a link to that??
cause 240 yrs of history say different,,,

No the history doesn't, which is why you and the rest of the cultists have nothing but ;lots of noise and no facts. The facts are the vast majority of references to 'the People' bearing arms are in terms of state militias, and those states determining who was a full citizen and who wasn't, usually involving property qualifications and skin color, social standing, etc. The first two cases involving the 2nd Amendment in US history were Cruikshank v US and its sister case Presser v Illinois, both of which weren't overturned until this Century, when a different gang of judges ruled based on their own whims as well, not precedent. Many debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were in terms of states rights, state control of officers, etc., and some as a state's defensive counter to a standing national Army oppressing a state against its will.

The rest of the rubbish is the same old nonsense, rinsed and repeated as if dong so will make it all true. Don't forget to wear your ruby slippers and visit the Wizard while you're at it.

are you ever going to post a link to something to back up your claims or just keep makin shit up and avoiding the facts I have presented???

I'm not posting for your sniveling demands, I'm posting for those in the Peanut Gallery who aren't too stupid to do their own homework, like reading the Constituti0nal Convention diaries and debates, the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist responses, the SC cases. You and your fellow cultists can continue wetting yourselves and crying all you want, no interest to me reading the same old simplistic infantile rubbish arguments for the umpteenth time.

so you know youre wrong and just makin excuses,,

figured that was the case,,,

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

Wrong....From Heller...

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Heller is nothing but another fiat ruling based on ideology, not legal precedent or original intent; it's just another example of judicial fiat replacing the rule of law, something right wingers snivel about but suddenly decide they're all for it, as well as reams of executive orders, when it suits their fantasies. That's why ideologues are worthless shills, whether left or right wingers.

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

got a link to that??
cause 240 yrs of history say different,,,

No the history doesn't, which is why you and the rest of the cultists have nothing but ;lots of noise and no facts. The facts are the vast majority of references to 'the People' bearing arms are in terms of state militias, and those states determining who was a full citizen and who wasn't, usually involving property qualifications and skin color, social standing, etc. The first two cases involving the 2nd Amendment in US history were Cruikshank v US and its sister case Presser v Illinois, both of which weren't overturned until this Century, when a different gang of judges ruled based on their own whims as well, not precedent. Many debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were in terms of states rights, state control of officers, etc., and some as a state's defensive counter to a standing national Army oppressing a state against its will.

The rest of the rubbish is the same old nonsense, rinsed and repeated as if dong so will make it all true. Don't forget to wear your ruby slippers and visit the Wizard while you're at it.

are you ever going to post a link to something to back up your claims or just keep makin shit up and avoiding the facts I have presented???

I'm not posting for your sniveling demands, I'm posting for those in the Peanut Gallery who aren't too stupid to do their own homework, like reading the Constituti0nal Convention diaries and debates, the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist responses, the SC cases. You and your fellow cultists can continue wetting yourselves and crying all you want, no interest to me reading the same old simplistic infantile rubbish arguments for the umpteenth time.

so you know youre wrong and just makin excuses,,

figured that was the case,,,

And we all note yet again you never can rebut anything, just whine and cry.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

Second Amendment was written back in the 1700’s, so countries back then and even now may not want one but the Citizens of many States want to keep it and that includes Democrats.

It is your choice not to own a gun but it is not your right to deny me one!

I own two shotguns and never once used them in any violent act against another person and I will not register them either just because you fear firearms!

People are responsible for their own actions and unfortunately people will kill and even though I do not believe in owning a AR-15 it does not mean I will deny my neighbor that right even if he kills me one day.

We will never agree on this subject matter, so in the end I will just say I am never going to support repealing the Second Amendment because once we do then Tyranny will happen!

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

got a link to that??
cause 240 yrs of history say different,,,

No the history doesn't, which is why you and the rest of the cultists have nothing but ;lots of noise and no facts. The facts are the vast majority of references to 'the People' bearing arms are in terms of state militias, and those states determining who was a full citizen and who wasn't, usually involving property qualifications and skin color, social standing, etc. The first two cases involving the 2nd Amendment in US history were Cruikshank v US and its sister case Presser v Illinois, both of which weren't overturned until this Century, when a different gang of judges ruled based on their own whims as well, not precedent. Many debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were in terms of states rights, state control of officers, etc., and some as a state's defensive counter to a standing national Army oppressing a state against its will.

The rest of the rubbish is the same old nonsense, rinsed and repeated as if dong so will make it all true. Don't forget to wear your ruby slippers and visit the Wizard while you're at it.

are you ever going to post a link to something to back up your claims or just keep makin shit up and avoiding the facts I have presented???

I'm not posting for your sniveling demands, I'm posting for those in the Peanut Gallery who aren't too stupid to do their own homework, like reading the Constituti0nal Convention diaries and debates, the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist responses, the SC cases. You and your fellow cultists can continue wetting yourselves and crying all you want, no interest to me reading the same old simplistic infantile rubbish arguments for the umpteenth time.

so you know youre wrong and just makin excuses,,

figured that was the case,,,

And we all note yet again you never can rebut anything, just whine and cry.

no I gave you actual proof in the constitution that proves your claim wrong,,

its you that hasnt provided anything other than your opinion,,

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

No, it actually isn't...

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”).

Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.



As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the

Rubbish. It is used in connection with a state organized militia. If you had bother to read Madison you would know he favored a Federal militia over individual state militias, all with the same uniforms and arms. Federalist 46 I think is Madison's vision, 29 is Hamilton's.

 

[DudleySmith]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

Second Amendment was written back in the 1700’s, so countries back then and even now may not want one but the Citizens of many States want to keep it and that includes Democrats.

It is your choice not to own a gun but it is not your right to deny me one!

I own two shotguns and never once used them in any violent act against another person and I will not register them either just because you fear firearms!

People are responsible for their own actions and unfortunately people will kill and even though I do not believe in owning a AR-15 it does not mean I will deny my neighbor that right even if he kills me one day.

We will never agree on this subject matter, so in the end I will just say I am never going to support repealing the Second Amendment because once we do then Tyranny will happen!

Yes, it's mostly a moot issue due to open borders and so many firearms out there already it will just hinder honest people at this point.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

No, it actually isn't...

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”).

Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.



As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the

Rubbish. It is used in connection with a state organized militia. If you had bother to read Madison you would know he favored a Federal militia over individual state militias, all with the same uniforms and arms. Federalist 46 I think is Madison's vision, 29 is Hamilton's.

it doesnt matter what they said,, what matters is what they wrote down in the constitution,,

 

[candycorn]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

Second Amendment was written back in the 1700’s, so countries back then and even now may not want one but the Citizens of many States want to keep it and that includes Democrats.

It is your choice not to own a gun but it is not your right to deny me one!

I own two shotguns and never once used them in any violent act against another person and I will not register them either just because you fear firearms!

People are responsible for their own actions and unfortunately people will kill and even though I do not believe in owning a AR-15 it does not mean I will deny my neighbor that right even if he kills me one day.

We will never agree on this subject matter, so in the end I will just say I am never going to support repealing the Second Amendment because once we do then Tyranny will happen!

Actually we do agree to a degree. I think it's almost criminally negligent to not own some means of self defense (i.e. firearms) in some places. Rural areas where the closest law enforcement is 30 miles away (if available) for example. But it's just as negligent to think that anyone who can maintain a pulse rate for 21 years or whatever it is should be able to buy a weapon that can snuff out dozens of lives in minutes--no questions asked.

As for tyranny taking place.... I just have to laugh.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

Second Amendment was written back in the 1700’s, so countries back then and even now may not want one but the Citizens of many States want to keep it and that includes Democrats.

It is your choice not to own a gun but it is not your right to deny me one!

I own two shotguns and never once used them in any violent act against another person and I will not register them either just because you fear firearms!

People are responsible for their own actions and unfortunately people will kill and even though I do not believe in owning a AR-15 it does not mean I will deny my neighbor that right even if he kills me one day.

We will never agree on this subject matter, so in the end I will just say I am never going to support repealing the Second Amendment because once we do then Tyranny will happen!

Nonsense.

No one seeks to amend the Constitution to ‘repeal’ the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment codifies the individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, not to deter crime, and not to ‘oppose tyranny.’

It’s the First Amendment that safeguards against tyranny, not the Second.

Last, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, and until such time that it does, such bans are perfectly consistent with Second Amendment case law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

Time for a new political system like Proportional Representation. More oversight, less corruption, more choice, more power to the people.... there's a reason the main two parties don't like it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

Second Amendment was written back in the 1700’s, so countries back then and even now may not want one but the Citizens of many States want to keep it and that includes Democrats.

It is your choice not to own a gun but it is not your right to deny me one!

I own two shotguns and never once used them in any violent act against another person and I will not register them either just because you fear firearms!

People are responsible for their own actions and unfortunately people will kill and even though I do not believe in owning a AR-15 it does not mean I will deny my neighbor that right even if he kills me one day.

We will never agree on this subject matter, so in the end I will just say I am never going to support repealing the Second Amendment because once we do then Tyranny will happen!

Actually we do agree to a degree. I think it's almost criminally negligent to not own some means of self defense (i.e. firearms) in some places. Rural areas where the closest law enforcement is 30 miles away (if available) for example. But it's just as negligent to think that anyone who can maintain a pulse rate for 21 years or whatever it is should be able to buy a weapon that can snuff out dozens of lives in minutes--no questions asked.

As for tyranny taking place.... I just have to laugh.

Actually, questions are asked when one purchases an AR 15 – on the 4473 form before the background check is conducted.

Some might argue that the questions aren’t comprehensive enough for purchasing such a weapon.

Making it more difficult to purchase an AR 15 is Constitutionally problematic; and the fact is that banning AR 15s and similar rifles and carbines is bad law – ineffective and unwarranted, regardless how otherwise Constitutional.

And yes, references to ‘tyranny’ are laughable hyperbole.

 

[candycorn]

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.

However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.

How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE

When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...

m.dailykos.com

Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.

If the 2nd Amendment is so good, one has to wonder why other nations haven't looked at it and said, "Damn...we need on of those!"

Second Amendment was written back in the 1700’s, so countries back then and even now may not want one but the Citizens of many States want to keep it and that includes Democrats.

It is your choice not to own a gun but it is not your right to deny me one!

I own two shotguns and never once used them in any violent act against another person and I will not register them either just because you fear firearms!

People are responsible for their own actions and unfortunately people will kill and even though I do not believe in owning a AR-15 it does not mean I will deny my neighbor that right even if he kills me one day.

We will never agree on this subject matter, so in the end I will just say I am never going to support repealing the Second Amendment because once we do then Tyranny will happen!

Actually we do agree to a degree. I think it's almost criminally negligent to not own some means of self defense (i.e. firearms) in some places. Rural areas where the closest law enforcement is 30 miles away (if available) for example. But it's just as negligent to think that anyone who can maintain a pulse rate for 21 years or whatever it is should be able to buy a weapon that can snuff out dozens of lives in minutes--no questions asked.

As for tyranny taking place.... I just have to laugh.

Actually, questions are asked when one purchases an AR 15 – on the 4473 form before the background check is conducted.

Some might argue that the questions aren’t comprehensive enough for purchasing such a weapon.

Making it more difficult to purchase an AR 15 is Constitutionally problematic; and the fact is that banning AR 15s and similar rifles and carbines is bad law – ineffective and unwarranted, regardless how otherwise Constitutional.

And yes, references to ‘tyranny’ are laughable hyperbole.

Its kinda like the time I had to get my car's registration sticker renewed after it expired....where the lady behind the counter at the court house asks you..."Did you drive the car with the expired plates here today"? Only a damn fool would say yes.

Whatever safeguards are in place, they are laughable.

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

I dont see anywhere that its left up to the states for anything having to do with the peoples right to be armed,,,

the 2nd makes it clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",,,

I don't care if you can't see it or not. Ideologues are all morons, left or right wingers; they all look alike.and they all end up with the exact same 'order'.

instead of being an ass why not just point out where it says that which you claim???

because the 10th amendment makes it clear it is delegated to the people not the states or feds,,

Why would I waste my time on rebutting rubbish claims? You think the 2nd A magically trumped states' rights for some reason, the sole Amendment to do so, despite all the other Amendments that didn't. The states decided who could vote, whether or not a state could have an established religion, etc. etc, but all of sudden the Feds were granted the absolute power to decide who could shoot everybody else regardless of what the individual states wanted. It's rubbish, and a made up 'universal right' that doesn't exist, as demonstrated over and over and over and over by subsequent state laws for the next 200+ years.

of course it does when you read both the 2nd and the tenth together,,, what youre doing is ignoring all of it,,,

if you only had a specific thing you could point to like I did your opinion might have merit,,

There is nothing in the 10th about unlimited weapon ownership. You can keep claiming that and dance around with the other cultists like you won something, but the fact is it was not a power granted to the Federal govt. and denied the states, by the 10th or any other Amendment.

we arent talking about unlimited ownership so dont change the subject because you dont have proof the states have a right to regulate,,,

it was a power delegated to THE PEOPLE as stated in the 2nd and the 10th,,,

'The People' as defined by the Founders, not you. Their definitions of 'The People' are a lot less broad than you would like.

No, it actually isn't...

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”).

Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.



As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the

Rubbish. It is used in connection with a state organized militia. If you had bother to read Madison you would know he favored a Federal militia over individual state militias, all with the same uniforms and arms. Federalist 46 I think is Madison's vision, 29 is Hamilton's.

it doesnt matter what they said,, what matters is what they wrote down in the constitution,,

lol you mean what you wish they wrote down. Besides, we all know hardly any of you 'heroes' are going to 'Fight Tyranny N Stuff' so quit embarrassing yourselves with this gibberish about 'keeping America Free'; you aren't going to do squat about keeping anybody free. You're going to hide under your beds and whine.

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

Time for a new political system like Proportional Representation. More oversight, less corruption, more choice, more power to the people.... there's a reason the main two parties don't like it.

A Parliamentary system would be better, but without a moral consensus and literacy tests and civics tests any system is going to be useless, like the old saying goes, any system where the Village Idiot's vote counts as much as a genius's vote is bound to suck.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

Time for a new political system like Proportional Representation. More oversight, less corruption, more choice, more power to the people.... there's a reason the main two parties don't like it.

A Parliamentary system would be better, but without a moral consensus and literacy tests and civics tests any system is going to be useless, like the old saying goes, any system where the Village Idiot's vote counts as much as a genius's vote is bound to suck.

Well, you're never going to get change without a sensible system.

The least corrupt countries on the planet use PR, because PR leads to less corruption, more towards what people need and want.

 

[DudleySmith]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

Time for a new political system like Proportional Representation. More oversight, less corruption, more choice, more power to the people.... there's a reason the main two parties don't like it.

A Parliamentary system would be better, but without a moral consensus and literacy tests and civics tests any system is going to be useless, like the old saying goes, any system where the Village Idiot's vote counts as much as a genius's vote is bound to suck.

Well, you're never going to get change without a sensible system.

The least corrupt countries on the planet use PR, because PR leads to less corruption, more towards what people need and want.

Electoral corruption has always been the key to American elections, so ti doesn't matter what you do, it will just produce yet another corrupt system. Americans love corruption and would never tolerate an honest system, same as it destroys honest business enterprise in favor of oligarchy and bribery. You are never going to reduce corruption in American politics by merely changing a system.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think it's very clear the Founders left it to the states to decide such individual issues, and the history bears it out, same as they did with establishment of religion, voting rights. etc. This makes both 'sides' unhappy but that is the way it was.

A safety course should be the primary requirement regardless of any of the rest of it. Times change, and far fewer people are raised around firearms from childhood like they were in the past, and that cultural change needs to be accounted for.

the country has been run by judicial fiat since the Civil war, and its no different today; the 'Constitutionality' of anything has long since been irrelevant, it's just whatever gang can pack the Federal benches these days gets to make up whatever laws they want to now. It's just delusional fantasy to believe otherwise.

Time for a new political system like Proportional Representation. More oversight, less corruption, more choice, more power to the people.... there's a reason the main two parties don't like it.

A Parliamentary system would be better, but without a moral consensus and literacy tests and civics tests any system is going to be useless, like the old saying goes, any system where the Village Idiot's vote counts as much as a genius's vote is bound to suck.

Well, you're never going to get change without a sensible system.

The least corrupt countries on the planet use PR, because PR leads to less corruption, more towards what people need and want.

Electoral corruption has always been the key to American elections, so ti doesn't matter what you do, it will just produce yet another corrupt system. Americans love corruption and would never tolerate an honest system, same as it destroys honest business enterprise in favor of oligarchy and bribery. You are never going to reduce corruption in American politics by merely changing a system.

Well, the US hasn't tried the least corrupt system known. So.... I disagree.

Americans don't love corruption, it's what they know. Then again other countries with PR were like that before.

And I believe you can reduce corruption by changing the system, because PR changes how people think, and especially how politicians treat the system.