Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.
The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.
An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal. Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns. Arms are in the times in Armories, and trained to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Read the next clause in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 15.
Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...www.dailykos.com
Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.
SKews is a MORON... The Declaration of Independence was very clear on the second amendment and why it exists.
Excerp:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--"
Source
No, this is wrong.Wrong... The states have no purview over weapons. The term "shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Hands off.. as it is a right that no one can touch, not even the states.
Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.
Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.
The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.
What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.
Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.
That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.
There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.
In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.
The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)
Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.
Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.
The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago
There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...
Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC
Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade
The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.
A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.
The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.Actually, the Amendment applies to everybody.
The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.
Nah, this wasn't posted to you. Of course you are a gun lover, and gun lovers let postal workers flip out and kill others in their postal office, along with children in schools, and in other situations for those who buy guns legally and for fun.^^^^Idiot Gram
Incorrect.Actually, the SC began applying the Constitution to the states after the 14th Amendment was ratified, and that includes the 2nd. That happened in 1868, a little earlier than your date of 2010.
I suppose, but those of us in California west of the Sierra have empathy.well as we say in the South....'Bless Your Heart'.
MoveAlmost all the other amendments have been incorporated, why would the 2nd be any different?
It's a right I have as a US Citizen and can't be taken away just because I am a Citizen of New York.
Although they repeatedly try.
And the entire Bill of Rights has not been incorporated to the states, such as the Third Amendment.Actually, the SC began applying the Constitution to the states after the 14th Amendment was ratified, and that includes the 2nd. That happened in 1868, a little earlier than your date of 2010.
That would make Roe even more likely to be overturned, as there is no right to abortion incorporated to the states.And the entire Bill of Rights has not been incorporated to the states, such as the Third Amendment.
Nope.So you are supporting and were supporting a Politician who lost an election, and bloviated to biddable fools to take Arms and overthrow an election, with no probative evidence, when three score and more courts rejected the election was stolen.
when i was working in the PO many of those guys owned guns....even the ones who identified as democrats.....Nah, this wasn't posted to you. Of course you are a gun lover, and gun lovers let postal workers flip out and kill others in their postal office, along with children in schools, and in other situations for those who buy guns legally and for fun.
now they are tyrants.....when they rule in your favor they then are judges...The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.
For starters, there is no such thing as a "lesser right." That was invented by the Daily Kos writer to try and diminish the legitimacy of Heller. I mean, c'mon.
But, the rest of the OP is largely correct. The Second Amendment was written by men in the 18th century, to whom the term "bear arms" meant to serve in a State militia. Madison and the First Congress debated the points based on the likes of when King James II tried to dismantle the local militias so his tax-collecting royal soldiers could muscle the people out of tax money; there was no mention in any of the supplemental notes or in the arguments themselves about private ownership. None. It was like this for almost our entire history.
It was Heller in 2008 that applied it to private ownership. As it is a Supreme Court ruling, it can be overturned, either by legislation or by a later Supreme Court ruling, just as people are now thinking will happen to Roe v. Wade. It is the ruling we live under now, but in the future it absolutely can be re-litigated and re-interpreted as applying only to, for example, the National Guard.
You should have been alive 200 years ago. Someone would have shot you.
