The NRA has been relentless in its campaign to create an alternate history regarding guns and the myth that the Constitution somehow guarantees individual gun rights. Only a few decades ago, such notions were considered an exotic legal argument. It wasn’t until 2008 that a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment — which on its face merely provides states the right to maintain militias (i.e., the Missouri National Guard) — also allows individuals to keep firearms in their homes.
Allowing weapons at home for protection isn’t intrinsically unreasonable, but gun-safety advocates feared that declaring it a constitutional right would crack the door to more extreme arguments. And now it has.
— St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, A pivotal Supreme Court case may soon worsen America’s firearms crisis
Gun control was an “exotic legal argument” prior to the progressive era.
More “extremists” movements…
You mean like freedom meaning actually being free?
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans.”
Yup, that’s what it really means.
Tench Coxe Feb. 20, 1788 in the Pennsylvania Gazette explaining the Bill of Rights 2A.
excellent post!…. Thanks for that one….
said by someone IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME THAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN……
There is no arguing this point….. the left need to be taught this lesson….
We have seen this once before. The British tried this back in the civil War for our independence in the 1600’s and got there asses smeared all over this country. If the Libtards want this to happen to them we can do it all over again. We will not bow down to tyranny again “just come and try and take it” Libtards!!!!
The MEDIA has been relentless in its campaign to create an alternate history regarding fake news and the myth that the Constitution somehow guarantees individual speech rights. Only a few decades ago, before the internet and 5 minute news cycles such notions were considered an exotic legal argument.
Allowing News rooms to spew their vitriol in their own communities isn’t intrinsically unreasonable, but speech-safety advocates feared that declaring it a constitutional right would crack the door to more extreme arguments. And now it has.
Your first amendment rights are now different from my second amendment rights. Playing with fire you are.
Your first amendment rights are NO different from my second amendment rights. Playing with fire you are.
They’re coming after your First Amendment rights as well.
Mostly got the 4th and pretty sure the others are on the table as well
Well, at least we still have the 3rd, for now. It’s just about the last amendment standing from the bill of rights.
So members of the Missouri National Guard are allowed to keep fully automatic rifles in their homes? The same alternate reality applies to the rest of this editorial as yet one more Progressive advances a fallacious straw-man argument.
Almost seems like this article was written by Miner49er. Same fallacious arguments.
I scrolled down and read the title first and thought the SCOUTUS ruling was going to somehow make guns and ammo even harder to find. I don’t get what the author was babbling about had to do with America’s firearms crisis though.
“I don’t get what the author was babbling about had to do with America’s firearms crisis though.”
Those pesky facts don’t match the claim of a “Firearm crisis”. Gun deaths are half of what they were 20-odd years back, while (probably) 100 million *more* guns are on the street.
It’s almost like more guns mean less gun violence… 🙂
Their only concern is St Louis, maybe it’s the demographics?
YEAH, I bet you think keeping criminals in jail longer will lower crime in the US. What a concept. Before you know it people will actually think they have a right to protect themselves and their families. What is going to become of this country when “We the People” actually take responsibility for protecting ourselves? OMG
“The NRA has been relentless in its campaign to create an alternate history regarding guns and the myth that the Constitution somehow guarantees individual gun rights.”
This is very confusing and feels more like revisionist history. There are plenty of myths out there with regard to guns but this sentence makes no sense.
It’s a total distortion of reality, as is this: “…merely provides states the right to maintain militias…”
By that logic, the bill of rights also guarantees states, not individuals, the right to speak and worship as they will. It’s nonsensical, and it’s stupid. Whoever wrote that op-ed thinks WE’RE stupid.
The writer ought to be ashamed, but probably doesn’t know the meaning of the word.
If you think about it, the Bill of Rights apparently DOES only apply to the states, and not to individuals. . .
When was the last time you saw a state denied the right to petition Congress, or gather in public, or attend an indoor worship service, without a permit? When did you last hear of a state locked up without trial for months on end for a misdemeanor? When did a state government have its voting rights removed permanently for possession of an unregistered handgun?
As all of these things have clearly happened to individuals, despite all of the worthy claims put forth in the Bill of Rights, it seems patently obvious that there is NOTHING, nowadays, in the Bill of Rights that isn’t intended to protect the State from its citizens.
In particular, this applies to the 2nd Amendment most of all. Today, the proper interpretation of that ancient bunch of rambling words written by old dead white slave-owning rich guys actually should be interpreted, “A tightly-controlled Collective State military force being necessary for the security of a Collective State, the right of the Collective State to keep and bear arms against its own citizens should they get uppity shall not be infringed.”
Hope that clears things up for you.
“If you think about it, the Bill of Rights apparently DOES only apply to the states, and not to individuals. . .”
The US constitution’s 2nd amendment quite clearly states “…the right of the people…”
It does NOT say the right of the states.
“When was the last time you saw a state denied the right to petition Congress, or gather in public, or attend an indoor worship service, without a permit? When did you last hear of a state locked up without trial for months on end for a misdemeanor? When did a state government have its voting rights removed permanently for possession of an unregistered handgun?”
2020/2021!
A “deeply divided court” ruled 9-0 that the second amendment guarantees an individual right. The minority ruled, illogically it seems, that the right guaranteed was an individual right to keep arms in the home for the purpose of serving in the militia–and nothing else. Not that there is any historical evidence that the citizenry ever limited their conduct in this fashion, especially in an era where going around armed was a pretty common activity.
Immediately following ratification, several states implemented constitutions that explicitly recognize the right of individual citizens to bear arms. That gives the lie to the notion that the right to bear arms was recognized at the time as actually being some kind of power of the states.
Not that anyone actually believes that. Under the “state power to arm militia” theory, the states would be empowered to make every citizen a member of the militia, and direct that they own their own private arms to be kept at home and carried therefrom – and the federal government would be powerless to prevent them. They don’t really mean that the 2nd Amendment protects a state power, they mean it protects nothing.
That’s an interesting point. If the Feds dis-armed the citizenry the states could arm their respective militias. Then, the Feds could call up the militia of the states and dis-arm them under the power to “arm” the militia.
At that point there would be nothing left of the pretext of “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” and there would be no dispute that we would be in a post-Constitutional era.
I posted this on their page. The label I referred to was above the Comments section: “Your label above the comments is “Be Honest”. Sad that you don’t practice that missive. Your editorial against the plain truth of the Second Amendment is as dishonest as any that I have read in the decades that I have been fighting to preserve the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Your description of the 2nd is false on its face. You stated that the 2nd was written to allow the states to form militias, such as Missouri’s National Guard. The colonies had the right to form militias prior to becoming states. The founders wrote extensively about the need for “the people” to keep and bear arms. Jefferson said “No man shall be debarred the use of weapons”. Numerous example exist throughout the writings. By advocating for the destructions of the 2nd, which is EXACTLY what you posit, you have become a domestic enemy of the Constitution. YOU are the very people I swore my oath to defend against.”
According to what Biden says…’the people’ refers to Washington DC. It does not mean citizens or what would be considered the general population. WE The People means elected democrats.
Yup. They have a rude awakening coming.
Hmm… I thought ‘We the people…’ referred to unelected bureaucrats.
Fudd.
See comment below.
Given their recent history, I’m not holding my breath until SCOTUS does the right thing.
Agreed. Don’t spend the money until the check is cashed at the bank.
After all, the 18-state lawsuit (led by Texas) demanding that the Election results be audited was struck down by SCOTUS, despite the mountain of obvious evidence suggesting foul play. You never know…
Yeah, I’d like to have SCOTUS explain to the 18 states now that they don’t have standing. Esp. TX & AZ since they have to live with the border mess Bitem created. Every person & every state must have standing in federal elections because every state and every person has to live with the outcome of said elections. The ruling that they did not have standing was absurd on its face.
@ I Haz a Little Yellow Dot,
It was Texas AND 19 other states (20 total) that filed AMICI CURIAE in Support of a Complaint vs the four States of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
They were not seeking an audit, but rather alleged the four states changed their election processes immediately before the election and did so illegally.
And critically.. SCOTUS did not “strike down” the case, rather they cowardly did nothing and denied the petition, stating a lack of standing.
I am not saying this is why you attract trolls (the yellow dot doesn’t help), however it likely doesn’t help it either.
.
Thank you for the correction, Thomas. Facts do matter, so I appreciate the nudge.
My little yellow dot with the raised eyebrow is a perfect match for my username, and stands out conspicuously when one scrolls down the page. I like it. Simple, yet effective.
And it got your attention. 🙂
What I’ve never really understood is if the second amendment doesn’t apply to the individual what does it apply to? What does it attempt to do?
Is the argument really that the second amendment protects the government from infringing on its own right to arm itself? Which should be an incredibly silly argument on its face, I would think.
Is the argument that states have the right to build and arm a militia? Again, that doesn’t really match with the rest of the bill of rights, but if it were why not just say the states have a right to form a militia?
I really don’t understand what the belief is regarding the point of the second amendment is, if it isn’t for the individual.
If the 2nd Amendment were a state power it would have been covered under the 10th Amendment. If it were a federal power it would have been in Article 1, Section 8 (where the power to raise an army and maintain a navy are enumerated). If it were an individual right it would have been placed in the first nine amendments of the Bill of Rights. Pretty simple, you’d think.
Have you ever read “Alice in Wonderland”?
Here’s a relevant quote: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ‘ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things. ‘ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
You just THINK that those archaic words written down by those old dead white slave-owning rich guys has some actual meaning today.
They don’t.
“The question is, which is to be master – that’s all.”
Humpty Dumpty ended in permanent destruction.
Your archaic words suggest your losing any will to live. That is unfortunate. But your loss does not mean I must follow.
You may choose whatever you like. As for me (and many others) there is nothing to question, I choose the master builder.
It is impossible to have a militia if citizens aren’t allowed to own firearms suitable for a militia. It’s just that simple.
The left claims that the National Guard is now the militia…more leftist BS…the NG is still an arm of the government and the military…and NOT a militia.
Plus…they reinterpret the meaning of “well regulated”.
Not to mention forget that the wording says right of THE PEOPLE…not THE MILITIA…to keep and bear
OH …keep AND bear…not just keep…BEAR…
Oh but Earpiece already set about the meaning of The People. Didn’t he say something to the effect that The People is The Government?
Sure it is!
You just have to get those citizens organized (like, ‘well-regulated’), have ’em report to the nearest government armory to pick up their weapons, form ’em up into goon squads, and you’re all set!
They don’t have to OWN the weapons, now, do they?
Weapons are not always firearms or even edged.
Fudd.
See comment below.
We had just fought a revolutionary war against a tyrannical government, and today’s leftists think the Framers believed that ordinary American citizens should be left completely defenseless against potentially tyrannical governments here.
Special kind of stupid.
There was no citizenship then, just freemen and slaves. Landowners were the top of the heap.
red wolf, this is what they think of “we the people” and the right to bear arms:
“The U.S. Supreme Court, with its newly stacked conservative majority, will consider arguments over the supposed right of wild-eyed zealots to walk around in public with a gun.”
against potentially tyrannical governments here.
As if THEY (the benevolent powers in DC) would EVER consider themselves to be TYRANTS… After all they only want “what’s best for their subjects” errr The citizenry…
Not to them.
They simply do not believe that Government, when controlled by them and people like them, could EVER become tyrannical–unless it was suddenly and apocalyptically not controlled by them and people like them, at which time it WOULD become tyrannical, which is why it must never fall into the wrong hands again.
This is why the permanent establishment of a one-party system, by the correct party, is so critical.
The very definition of tyranny.
I guess freedom of the press must only go to those with printing Presses?
Oh, glad you brought that one up. When they say “press” in the constitution they were referring to irons and the right to “press” one’s clothing. They clearly did not mean that just anyone should be able to put their beliefs to print!
The world is upside down. Let me get this straight: According to the resident occupying the White House, “no amendment is absolute”. So first amendment rights, second amendment rights: don’t actually mean what they say. However, there is a new constitutional “right” to murder babies in the womb and that is an absolute “right”. I guess because it is not an amendment. Or something like that.
May God have mercy on our nation.
+1
Whenever someone tells me gun control is necessary “even if it saves just one life, especially the children”, I ask them why they support abortion. According to the CDC’s own numbers, the long term average is 600K abortions per year in the U.S. If just *half* of those innocent babies were spared that death, it would still be 100x the annual estimate of 3000 children shot by guns. So, priorities, and all that…
A perfect riposte! I am so stealing that. Thanks!
Won’t work. Sorry.
You see, until the little head pops out and the first breath is taken, or maybe just a little bit longer, to THEM it’s not a ‘life,’ and it’s certainly not a ‘baby.’
‘Collection of cells,’ ‘fetus,’ ’tissue specimen,’ maybe.
‘Life’? Never.
“No amendment is absolute”
Those who benefit from the 13th and 19th amendments might want to think verrrry hard about whether they’re REALLY on board with this logic..
Does he mean the 16th as well, cause I don’t feel like paying taxes anymore…
“According to the resident occupying the White House, “no amendment is absolute”.”
By that warped logic, this obviously means there are common-sense exceptions to the 13th amendment that are perfectly fine.
I’d like to have me an Antifa chained to the wall in the basement. 🙂 (Obvious Sarcasm…)
Read the 13th Amendment again.
It does NOT prohibit slavery. It only requires that your Government convict you of a crime before it enslaves you, or subjects you to involuntary servitude.
So, once again, it’s not an Amendment that protects the individual against Government; It’s a rulebook for how Government can legally enslave its citizens.
Sorry.
Slavery comes in many forms. Only a tiny sliver of it has anything to do with skin color.
Here, you can ‘choose’ something else. No matter who you are.
It specifically says keep AND bear…without saying whether that is in public or private….concealed or openly carried……so would be interesting to see the outcome.
At the time, “concealed” was not very easy.
Or necessary…
Not so, Sir.
Virtually all of the first-class gunmakers in England and the Continent produced some really nice compact pistols, small enough to fit in a gentleman’s pocket or a lady’s purse or muff. Many had centre-hung locks for added compactness, some were even turn-off breechloaders, and virtually all could inflict a sooner-or-later fatal wound.
Terms like “concealed” and “easy” are relative.
Leigh, since limitations/restrictions are not mentioned then it follows that “keep and bear” means anytime by any means since threats can and do appear any time any place without advance warning.
Fudd.
See comment below.
I think I can tell you. Everyone seems to think there’s no way we can lose this one. Well, I’ve got news for you, this is the one they give the left to show there’s no need to pack the court. The decision will be that as long as the state allows you to carry an unloaded firearm in the trunk of the car so that you can carry it from place to place that meets the intent of the constitution for the term “bear”. At that point the matter will become “settled” law and the unconstitutional “may issue” will stand for all time.
This is a very bad time to bring this lawsuit. The court is trying to preserve itself and will gladly throw the people under the proverbial “bus” to do so.
The founders used the word “militia” to refer to every able bodied male of military age that could be mustered in defense of their community. They despised the idea of a standing military under federal control because it would be a source of tyranny, and while there were stores of munitions and heavy weaponry kept by the local government, it was expected and required that militia members kept their military grade small arms at their home along with relevant munitions and powder – and there was nothing preventing the individual citizen from owning his own cannon (though it would have been considered impractical on a personal basis, it was done, particularly with smaller cannon)
The idea of the “minute man” in America was that an average, able bodied citizen could be ready to go to war in a minute. The requirement was that he had everything he needed to GO to war at hand.
So I’ll accept the argument of a “only a well regulated” militia when..
(1) gun-grabbers consent to me having in my home, ready for use: a suppressed M4 with full battle rattle and NVG’s, and a 3 inch mortar. I should have everything I need to go to war on hand.
(2) Every able bodied and eligible citizen takes part in military drills and infrastructure/public work on at least a bimonthly basis. No free passes. No special statuses. You’re part of the militia. You serve. You don’t serve, you don’t vote.
(3) The individual state militias can no longer be deployed without a declaration of War from Congress AND the consent of their state’s legislature & Governor.
Otherwise we can go with what the founders originally, and clearly, meant.
Since we need the citizenry to be able to defend themselves and their state, the right of the individual citizen to keep weaponry in a state of readiness in their homes as well as bear weaponry in public shall not be infringed.
I always heard the term “minute man” referred to someone good enough to go from firing their gun and then reloading it to firing it again within one minute.
Actually a proficient “Minute Man” could reload and fire THREE times a minute…
Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies… They were known for being ready at a minute’s notice, hence the name…
Incidentally, the government provided none of the equipment. Everyone had to purchase their own muskets or rifles, procure or produce powder, cast lead ball ammo, etc.
If you couldn’t produce or procure a full “load out,” you were ill-prepared and unwanted on the battlefield.
Fudd.
See comment below.
Of course, it’s totally ludicrous and nonsensical to state that “The People”, used throughout the Constitution and BOR, means something different in the 2A. The people means ALL the people EVERYWHERE in the documents. The one thing that is different about the 2A, is that it says “Shall not be infringed”, a phrase that appears nowhere else.
ALL of the anti-2A cabals “arguments”, have no clothes. They are truly the naked Emperor strutting down the street proud as a peacock.
“…on its face…” Or, in other words, in a superficial reading that ignores the original meaning of words and is prejudiced by the biases of the author.
It blows my mind at how the so called Education of our population has failed us. The Founders thought it unnecessary to include the Ten Amendments in the original Constitution as these were assumed to be inherent understood by all. Detractors prevailed cautioning that people would attempt to take advantage of that left unsaid. After all when you enumerate the powers dedicated to the Federal Government one would assume that which was not assigned to them would be reserved to the governments closer to the people or the People themselves. But No the Fed has been confiscating authorities that were definitely not laid out for them, thus violating the Tenth. The same has been happening with the Second! It was understood the Militia consisted of all able-bodied men. These men were actually REQUIRED to arm themselves, with sufficient powder and ball, and regular practice, so as to be able to defend their home, community, State, and Nation from threats both foreign and domestic. The Founders were also suspicious of a standing army as they had been used by other nations to the detriment of their citizens. As has been seen of late, this is happening here! Thus the personal Right of arms, both in private keeping, and personal bearing of said arms.
The education of our population has been a success beyond the wildest dreams of the Marxists who run it. When you realize that the public school curriculum’s first priority is to misinform and propagandize it makes more sense. The left does not want or need thinkers, only obedient subjects.
Hitler Youth comes to mind especially when observing the Storm Trooper/Brown Shirt operations in Portland, Seattle and many other Socialist Democrat Controlled Jurisdictions. BLM and Antifa are the very antithesis of the things they claim to be against. The Liberal Democrat leadership has been following the Fascist playbook since the 60’s. Once you control the education system. Controlling the Ideology soon follows. Then comes the Acolytes to enforce the Dogma through Political Correctness followed by Cancel Culture with violence or the mere threat of violence to force compliance or silence of anyone who disagrees. Hitler took his cue from Mussolini who he admired greatly for his ability to control the narrative and the Democrat leadership realized the usefulness of such abilities. Next they infiltrated and purchased the Media with like minded individuals to further Control the narrative as Hitler did in the 1930’s. Then it was only a matter of time in deciding when to bring their Social weapons to bear. We are witnessing what they believe is the next step in their Plan for Control of Societies Morals by pointing out who is the Enemy of the Dogma which prevents them from Transforming Our nation into the next Great Society. The only Real question Now is. Will “We the People” Stand Against the Evil that now permeates Society or will they simply pass the way of the Jews in the 30’s and 40’s. In resigned silence fearing to resist or never believing it could get that bad. History is repeating itself before Our very eyes. The only difference at this point is the Outcome.
YIPPIEKIYEAH. Someone gets it.
Non-Fudd.
See comment below.
Most of the success of the progressives to rewrite American history is due to parents being either unaware of what is being taught or just turning over their kids’ upbringing to the schools since it’s relatively cheap in that they don’t have to write a weekly/monthly babysitting check. Wonder how many complainers here have ever run for school board?
This is a big part of why it’s such a serious issue that people coming here from other countries (for whatever reason) refuse to learn the english language and assimilate to the American culture. It’s part of the effort to remove American culture.
Actually the notion of an individual right goes back to slavery and before. There is a decision on the rights of blacks before the civil war that says where free blacks equal under the law they would have to be allowed the R2BA.
The notion that 2a was an individual right us NOT new. The right to marry same sex , have an abortion or wear a dress to work covering your make genitals however are new and novel ideas under the constitution.
Rights are ALWAYS individual. They do not apply to any group beyond all of the individuals having the right. Governments don’t have rights. Businesses don’t have rights.
There is only one outcome: the Supreme Court declaring that there is no right to carry a gun and therefore no right of self defense outside the home. Essentially declaring and laying the groundwork for the ban of self defense.
Wolf Totem
The Federalist papers, Anti Federalist papers, commentary during ratification of the 2nd and 14th Amendments must not been in the author’s required reading of the US Constitution.
Had they read them, they would know they are wrong. If they read them and still believe what they are trying to tell us, they are a liar.
Which is it?
Get off this site and write a letter to the editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I’ll be doing one this evening. Did a similar one to Las Vegas Sun awhile back snd it got forwarded something like 35,000 times on FB and some other sites. Preaching to choir here feels good but doesn’t accomplish much.
I always wonder why is it any of the Federal Governments business how many people get shot or die from gun shot wounds in South Carolina. (I’m using SC as an example but applies to al States.)
I can certainly state that South Carolinians don’t give a tinkers damn about people being shot in Washington DC! or Sanfran, LA ect
It’s past time that our State representative literally stood up and said to the Fed bureaucracy’s “Eff off the lot of you. We’re done listening and will not comply period and there ain’t f-all you can do about it”
…sigh. one can wish.
“The NRA has been relentless in its campaign to create an alternate history regarding guns and the myth that the Constitution somehow guarantees individual gun rights.”
Nonsense. The NRA has been inconsistent and untrustworthy from the time of the 1934 National Firearms Act to the present day. They have waffled, supported their (and our) own opposition and even proposed restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. No one should doubt that the NRA has at times done real good in this political struggle. At the same time, do not doubt that they have betray POTG as well.
The most current example being the corrupt regime of Wayne LaPAYme!
The heavy lifting these days is with the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Policy Coalition. Also state organizations for Second Amendment rights.
The NRA? Well, could be some good efforts coming from them still but it is awash in the sewage of WLP’s corruption and their pretending to be POTG’s most ardent, but not true friends.
Wayne voted for theBiden.
Say what???? No way…
I’ve yet to see one of these so-called “Gun Safety Advocates” that knows anything about firearms or how to safely handle them.
This writer is deep in the kool-aid!
And also shows it’s ignorance.
How anyone, with an I.Q. above that of a turnip, (sorry turnips) can claim that the “founding fathers,” in writing the “Bill of Rights,” of “the People,” stopped after writing the First Amendment, and saud,”I know, let us write one for the government,” is beyond me, it is not logical, it is not sensible, and it is just PLAIN STUPID, to think so!!!!!
The Second amendment is the only one with 22,000 laws restricting it’s free exercise. Imagine if you had to have a FOID card to attend church, or a license to associate with like minded friends?
This one was DEFINITELY written by a affirmative action lottery winner… lol….. they obviously have no business being a “jurnlist”….
give me a f kn BREAK ALREADY..
. SHEESH
Considering the latest litany of literal gymnastics SCOTUS has performed to make recent court decisions to satisfy current cultural leanings; it wouldn’t surprise me if they don’t re-write the entire bill of rights to say what the communists want it to say. These days, right is wrong, wrong is right; up is down, down is up; and law abiding citizens are jailed while criminals are free.
Only Jesus can save America now.
You can give up if you want to. That’s a choice your certainly free to make.
As for me:
“And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.” Acts 12:8
First, I have not read “every” comment. So this might not apply to some; but certainly does to most.
YA’LL ARE A BUNCH OF FUDDS. Let that sink in folks, because you are.
It seems that even what goes for gun “educated” folk here have fallen into the lefts trap of wrong think. Didn’t you people study civics? The Constitution, and incorporated Bill of Rights, is not and can never be used as, a limit upon the People. It is a limit placed upon Government by the People. It matters not where a comma is or what the introductory statement of this or that says. AND PLEASE STOP CALLING IT A CLAUSE! By doing so you show you think the Bill of Rights is a limit upon the People. That is all IRRRLEVANT! The Bill of Rights acknowledges that all rights reside in the People. It is a statement, upon some rights, to tell Government to keep its hands off. That’s it. Every time you talk about the wording in the 2nd Amendment you have already placed yourself on the lefts side.
STOP IT!!!!!
The only operative words in the entire 2nd Amendment are “the right of the People”. The phrase “the right” acknowledges that rights pre-exist and are not given, granted, or subject to regulation by government. That is the very definition of a right. Every time you talk about the wording of the 2nd Amendment you agree it is a privilege.
STOP IT!!!!!
In Heller even the venerable Justice A. Scalia was wrong. There are no acceptable limits upon rights. Period. Yes Virginia, one CAN yell fire in a crowded theatre. No one has ever even remotely suggested a law banning the word “fire” or any other word for that matter. Words are the tools of the 1st Amendment protected right to speech. Arms are the tools of the 2nd Amendment protected right to preservation of self and state. Now if the use of speech, or arms, then harms others, laws are certainly appropriate. Laws, especially those related to rights, do not prevent, they punish.
So let’s talk about the dreaded black rifles. Go read US v. Miller (1939). This is the most underappreciated and unused SCOTUS ruling ever. The courts opinion in Miller incorrectly assumed that short barreled shotguns are not used by the military because there was no opposing evidence to show that they were. But it is the specific language used in the finding which is of great import. In Miller, SCOTUS stated that arms of efficacy to the military are SPECIFICALLY protected (by the introductory statement of the 2nd Amendment) for the People. Let that sink in…. Miller, if properly argued, nullifies the NFA entirely and establishes precedent that any arm of efficacy to the military is protected for we the People. It astounds me this hasn’t been leveraged to our advantage yet. So please stop saying the AR-15 isn’t a weapon of war. It is. Semiautomatic rifles have served in war time for over 100 years. As have semiautomatic pistols and shotguns.
I EMPLORE you all, please get your heads screwed on correctly and quit thinking like the left wants you to think. If you don’t you have already lost.
Words do mean things. Turning words and ideas into things they are not just creates problems.
ALL weapons are weapons of war. All is fair in love and war. Having no evidence of a particular thing not used by a particular military has nothing to do with anything. Sharp sticks are weapons of war for someone that has nothing else to fight with. The truth is we ARE at war and we have weapons. The lack of a formal declaration of war does not mean we are at peace.
Assault Weapons…a weapon used to assault someone. Wether a firearm or not.
Assault Rifle…a very expensive full auto firearm that is hard for a civilian to get.
The AR15 can be used to assault someone but it is absolutely NOT an assault rifle.
Any modern firearm people are likely to discuss will take a magazine and NOT a clip.
I have the absolute right to self preservation and THAT is non-negotiable.
There are things in this life worth fighting, killing, and dieing for. Freedom is one of them.
The Constitution is a set of rules limiting government. It does NOT limit the people. Those are two separate entities.
This might be a response to you but I do agree with you. I know that there are others that see this too.
@Gman
Hmmm, so you say we shouldn’t argue the meaning of the 2a yet you proclaim that “the right” indicates something that is inherent and pre-exists the constitution? By your own definition you are a Fudd. Sorry…
Anyway, it is not wrong to argue the meaning when forced to do so by far fetched and intentional misinterpretations. In fact, it is a necessity. After all, that is what lawsuits are all about.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t argue the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. I said stop doing it on their terms. The meaning of the Constitution is to provide certain enumerated powers to the government and define limits upon our rights. By “arguing” the meaning of the 2nd amendment on their terms you have already lost.
Typical communists. Talk and act as if their positions are real and accepted by everyone. Nothing you can do with people like this except…………….., well, I am probably not supposed to say that.
They keep pushing this angle that scotus narrowly created this individual right…
Except that even the dissenting opinion opens with this passage:
“The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an
‘individual right.’ Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals. …”
That means the court didn’t narrowly 5-4 create an individual right by twisting words… the court UNANIMOUSLY agreed that the 2A protects an individual right. The split was over how much an individual could exercise that right and if the govt had any say in that exercise.
Tell a big enough lie often enough…
Search for this:
A 2nd Amendment Grammar Lesson | The Political Hat
Not sure if a link is permitted, so…
What a novel idea, eh!? At least till they succeed in packing the court!!!
And if the supremes prove to be political paid off / bought off enemies of the constitution who rule there is no inherent right(s)? Then what?……..and so what??
You mean . . . that the SECOND Amendment (which hasn’t changed ANYWAY – and WON’T as per the U.S. Constitution) means what it SAYS? The we can OWN guns?!? What DASTARDLY Conservative said that? I guess the Left Wing COMMUNISTS will be DISAPPOINTED after all! Imagine that . . . One Enlightened And DELIGHTED Patriot. Team Trump And His Allies 2020 – MAGA (WE’RE NOT going away!).
Grandfathered rights forever ! Molon Labe !
@Gman
I was afraid that was what you meant. The problem is that it’s an impossible dictate as we do not create the argument we simply respond to the nonsensical interpretations. There is no argument among the POTG about the meaning.
I get what you mean and I agree in part, esp. using terms like assault rifles and ghost guns. POTG should avoid using those terms to the largest extent possible but it is often necessary in discussions to use terms that the opposition understands. The purpose of using those terms should always be redefining them though. For example: “So called Assault rifles are more correctly identified as Modern Sporting rifles and that is how I will refer to them during this discussion.”
Comments are closed.