Gun control laws in California and beyond in peril as Supreme Court expands 2nd Amendment
Gun control laws in California and beyond in peril as Supreme Court expands 2nd Amendment
Does the 2nd Amendment give gun rights to ex-felons and dangerous defendants? U.S. Supreme Court justices are about to decide.
You're viewing a single thread.
Do you have to get permission from the government to exercise free speech outside your home? Can you be denied your right to remain silent based on what state you live in? What other right can simply be denied to adults?
Treating the 2nd Amendment like a first-class right is hardly 'expanding' it.
You can still see consequences from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Let's not pretend that there can be no reasonable constraints on these things.
Ps. WHERE IS THE WELL REGULATED MILITIA?
With respect to yelling "fire" - you're not charged with the speech, you're charged with inciting the ensuing panic.
With respect to the militia - the words "the people" are used in several places in close proximity to the usage in the Second Amendment. The meaning of "the people" in the Second Amendment can't be construed to mean "the militia" without some serious mental gymnastics.
Iirc there was already some cases that decided that the government does have to right to decide what types of weapons you can own.
And what kind of speech you can say. For example, hate speech, incitements to violence, and of course yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
yelling “fire” in a crowded theater
Is part of an overturned court case. And even before it was overturned, the limit wasn't that you couldn't yell 'fire', the limit was you couldn't create harm via your actions. (Ex, if there was a fire, you did nothing illegal by saving others).
To circle this back to the 2nd Amendment. One can own and carry a gun, one can even save others with their firearm, one cannot murder people.
Hate speech is legal and incitement to violence has to be imminently dangerous. AFAIK all limitations of speech have to do with immediate public safety
And numerous forms of protest too. Anything that gains traction is then declared a "riot" or "illegal assembly" and dealt with harshly.
None of these 2A supporters seem to care that you need a permit to protest or register to vote, but ask for people to get even the most basic of training before purchasing an object specifically designed to kill people and suddenly its "but muh rights!"
"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."
I am just courious. What does that whole statement mean to you?
Why did you add a comma between Arms and shall?
Also basic grammar. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Is an independent clause. This is the right.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a dependent clause and just provides reasoning.
Thats how I interpret it it too, If they only wanted just the militias to be armed they would have said the right of the militias to keep and bear arms, but they said the right of the people. This is and was intended to be the most prestigious legal document in their proto-country. I have to assume they used the language they did on purpose.
Except that every able bodied man was assumed to be a member of the militia. This is because the idiots who wrote the 2nd amendment didn't want a standing army.
Then the war of 1812 happened and everyone was like "oh shit, maybe there was a reason why standing armies exist" and then the 2nd amendment was forgotten for a century. A bad idea that didn't work out.
It's kind of like the 3rd amendment. Important at the time, but actually meaningless in practice.
You say it was forgotten for a century as if people stopped buying guns for 100 years because there was a standing army. If the government wanted to get rid of it in favor of a standing army they would have done that, or at least tried. There's no indication it's a failed amendment because the US needed an army too. And in fact if it was a failed amendment, where was the uproar at the time? I don't really recall any historical fight against that amendment.
It was forgotten. Just like the 3rd amendment was.
People kept buying guns, but everyone sort of assumed (and rightly so) that the government could ban guns.
Hell, the shoot out at the O.K. Corral was over gun control, and the Cowboys gang was clearly in the wrong, and all of them were wanted criminals before the shootout.
But more to the point, the gun ban for Tombstone, Arizona was completely legal.
All of that is while militias still technically existed. After 1903, militias did not. Which is why the National Firearms Act of 1934 was ruled fully constitutional.
And that was the final word on the 2nd amendment until a convicted murderer in partnership with gun manufacturers decided that guns for everyone should be the goal of the NRA.
The NFA was to curtail gang violence when organized crime was near its peak, not to mention the prohibited items on it are still prohibited today. You still need tax stamps for silencers, automatic weapons, short barrel rifles, and anything else the government decided to classify there. I don't know what you think changed legally since then.
That was decided by a different SCotUS before I was born. Quite literally doesn't matter what it mean to us.
POV: You don't know what the words "well-regulated" mean
What other right can simply be denied to adults?
The right to life and liberty, by any gun owner, at any moment, for any reason.
What the hell are you talking about? Murder is illegal. What world do you live in where that isn't the case?
Murder is illegal, but the supreme court has said that it's okay to sell murder weapons to people who are obviously going to commit murder.
Because the right-wing nutjobs hate background checks, and red flag laws and anything else that slows down the constant murder.
it’s okay to sell murder weapons to people who are obviously going to commit murder
Planning to murder someone is not only illegal but also a felony, which bars gun ownership. If we have evidence someone is going to commit murder, arrest, charge, and convict them.
That's very specific.... what 1st degree? What about 2nd degree murder (heat of the moment kills)?
Should we keep people from buying cars, hammers, and kitchen knives?
Should we allow overweight, insecure men with a long history of red flags to buy hand grenades, land mines and machine guns?
Some people with NRA induced brain damage will of course say yes but the reality is that we've already decided that there are weapon that are too dangerous to indiscriminately hand out.
And what do you know? We're able to keep them out of the hands of domestic terrorists just fine.
Ethically? If they haven't be convicted in a court of law, yes, we should. Otherwise you're denying them due process. Also, red flag laws make getting help effectively illegal.
Thanks, that's everything we need to know to disregard your dumb as fuck opinions.
Is the sole purpose for any of those items "killing people"?
-
Does it matter?
-
Thats not the sole purpose of guns.
-
Yes it does matter because they have other beneficial uses that outweigh the harm they cause.
-
what else? Compensating for insecurity? Building an entire personality around them?
- Defending agaimst tyranny. Sporting, hunting, fun, collecting, "no purpose"
-
-
Don’t waste your time with GOP/Nazi members. They are a death cult. Killing others is what they love more than anything in this world.
You're in for a rude awakening if you believe that only GOP and Nazis own guns. There's a reason Reddit has a liberal gun owners sub. Lefties just tend to be less vocal about it.