Time To Dump The Second Amendment?

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

That is not new. Some of our most famous decisions reversed precedent--school segregation, sodomy, search and seizure, same sex marriage...............

See the long list here:

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

And in this case it goes strongly against public sentiment, which causes people to question what else might be changed, such as the Second Amendment. The SCOTUS made a very unpopular decision in 2008 against what the public wants, and because of the power of the NRA to control the Republican Party and seat partisan Justices, is not even considering doing something that the public is moving more in favor of with every mass shooting - flipping the Heller ruling.

The SCOTUS could rule that the 2nd does not mean for self protection, but only for the security of the free state - meaning national defense. It could be interpreted that if you ain't in a well regulated militia that you ain't got no right to have no gun. And because of the zeal of gun owners and the NRA, the right overlooks blatant lies to vote for corrupt Republicans just to preserve assumed gun rights which are not clear at all.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Hello Dutch,



I don't like it either but it is inevitable.

Refusing to accept that sounds like a good way to be perpetually at odds with the government of the society in which one lives.

Logically, as the world becomes more complex, and new dangers are presented for an increasing number of individuals in a society, the government of that society must become more complex, and new laws further restricting individual freedom will have to be enacted.

That is why part of our society includes 'lawmakers' and 'lawmaking.'

Look at the big picture. Before civilization, when humans or our predecessor species were hunter-gatherers with very rudimentary social structure, there were few rules; and great freedom. As civilization began, there had to be more rules and enforcement. A loss of freedom. From that point forward, with the advent of each new aspect of human creativity, there came new dangers and new ways for individuals to violate others privacy or safety. And with every new danger or way for humans to violate others' possessions or safety, governments are petitioned to create new rules and enforcement. And each time, more individual freedom is lost.

Basically, you freedom to swing your fist, or anything, is limited by the presence of other humans. The more humans, the less freedom.

There's no reversing evolution. And there is no freezing the amount of freedom an individual possesses in time. Time goes by, freedom is reduced. Period. Fighting that is a losing battle.

When it actually becomes inevitable is when the streets of America run red with blood.

This isn't 1938 Germany and you are not going to get your inner Nazi on in America like that.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Hello Flash,



And in this case it goes strongly against public sentiment, which causes people to question what else might be changed, such as the Second Amendment. The SCOTUS made a very unpopular decision in 2008 against what the public wants, and because of the power of the NRA to control the Republican Party and seat partial Justices, is not even considering doing something that the public is moving more in favor of with every mass shooting - flipping the Heller ruling.

The SCOTUS could rule that the 2nd does not mean for self protection, but only for the security of the free state - meaning national defense. It could be interpreted that if you ain't in a well regulated militia that you ain't got no right to have no gun. And because of the zeal of gun owners and the NRA, the right overlooks blatant lies to vote for corrupt Republicans just to preserve assumed gun rights which are not clear at all.

The bolded is false.

In the context of the language of the time, "well-regulated" meant everyone (and everyone was the militia) had and was to have weapons in proper working order.

 

[PoliTalker]

The second specifically references the purpose of being for the security of a free state.

The second does not even mention personal protection, the reason most gun rights advocates claim for gun ownership.

Most of the country lives in cities. Cities should be able to ban guns. When only properly regulated and trained government officers have guns, the public is safer. This has been shown in countries all over the world.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

The second specifically references the purpose of being for the security of a free state.

The second does not even mention personal protection, the reason most gun rights advocates claim for gun ownership.

Most of the country lives in cities. Cities should be able to ban guns. When only properly regulated and trained government officers have guns, the public is safer. This has been shown in countries all over the world.

it specifically says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Phantasmal]

it specifically says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But well regulated as well.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

But well regulated as well.

the militia is well regulated, not the right to guns.

militia just means men of "fighting age" not a state organized army.

 

[Phantasmal]

the militia is well regulated, not the right to guns.

militia just means men of "fighting age" not a state organized army.

Every right is regulated.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Every right is regulated...

...to the point of unconstitutionality in some cases.

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

And in this case it goes strongly against public sentiment, which causes people to question what else might be changed, such as the Second Amendment. The SCOTUS made a very unpopular decision in 2008 against what the public wants, and because of the power of the NRA to control the Republican Party and seat partisan Justices, is not even considering doing something that the public is moving more in favor of with every mass shooting - flipping the Heller ruling.

The SCOTUS could rule that the 2nd does not mean for self protection, but only for the security of the free state - meaning national defense. It could be interpreted that if you ain't in a well regulated militia that you ain't got no right to have no gun. And because of the zeal of gun owners and the NRA, the right overlooks blatant lies to vote for corrupt Republicans just to preserve assumed gun rights which are not clear at all.

Supreme Court decisions are not supposed to be made based on public sentiment but the law. 9-0 decisions are the most common.

If the Supreme Court rules the 2nd only applies to the military, that doesn't change the fact that most states are unlikely to pass any stricter gun control measures than they have now. It is a political decision, not because the Constitution prohibits those laws. Because a person does not have the constitutional right to possess a weapon does not mean it is illegal to do so. For example, some states already prohibit assault weapons but most do not.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The second specifically references the purpose of being for the security of a free state.

The second does not even mention personal protection, the reason most gun rights advocates claim for gun ownership.

Most of the country lives in cities. Cities should be able to ban guns. When only properly regulated and trained government officers have guns, the public is safer. This has been shown in countries all over the world.

read the commentaries of the framers, that is if you even want to know the truth. otherwise, you're just parroting BS leftist talking points and you should shut up

 

[SmarterthanYou]

But well regulated as well.

it does not say that. quit lying and spreading misinformation

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Every right is regulated.

that is the absolute WORST fucking ideology that the founders would have executed you for. there is a reason that the bill of rights was ratified and that was because those rights were absolute. not to be touched by the government.

 

[RB 60]

The second specifically references the purpose of being for the security of a free state.

The second does not even mention personal protection, the reason most gun rights advocates claim for gun ownership.

Most of the country lives in cities. Cities should be able to ban guns. When only properly regulated and trained government officers have guns, the public is safer. This has been shown in countries all over the world.

Ours does.

From the PA. constitution

"Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Ours does.

From the PA. constitution

"Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

you should ignore that idiot politalker...........he is one of those that refuses to acknowledge truth and reality, sticking to his own bullshit over anything else

 

[Dutch Uncle]

you should ignore that idiot politalker...........he is one of those that refuses to acknowledge truth and reality, sticking to his own bullshit over anything else

She.

No amendments will be repealed in our lifetimes.

What is more likely to happen is the punishment of all the traitors who supported Trump's coup. What do you think should happen to those who only gave money in support of Trump's coup? FBI interview? Felony conviction? IRS audit? All of the above? LOL

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Supreme Court decisions are not supposed to be made based on public sentiment but the law. 9-0 decisions are the most common.

If the Supreme Court rules the 2nd only applies to the military, that doesn't change the fact that most states are unlikely to pass any stricter gun control measures than they have now. It is a political decision, not because the Constitution prohibits those laws. Because a person does not have the constitutional right to possess a weapon does not mean it is illegal to do so. For example, some states already prohibit assault weapons but most do not.

California does not have as many gun deaths as red States because California has more sensible gun control.

 

[RB 60]

you should ignore that idiot politalker...........he is one of those that refuses to acknowledge truth and reality, sticking to his own bullshit over anything else

Yeah, I thought it was a she. Annoying.
Anyway, she's as far left as they come.
Her ideas would collapse this country.

Funnier yet, is the TDS Disease. Complete
captivation. Like they are possessed.

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

California does not have as many gun deaths as red States because California has more sensible gun control.

And CA has those laws now even with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Changing or eliminating the 2nd does not change the freedom of states to pass their own laws.

Some of the red states with higher gun deaths have fewer total homicides (ND, WYO).