Should states decide on gun ownership?

Then we can all possess nukes per the 2A. No restrictions.

I agree.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14_S1_1_1_1/

By the 14th amendment, a person has to be born.
And unborn is not protected.

 

Democracy is a general concept. Not the same as a "well regulated militia" in contemplation of a bunch of guys with muskets, then later being said to apply to machine guns.

That's up to you and your fellow citizens and not for me to say.

 

So nuke, claymore, LAWs, grenades, ownership is fine with you. As it should be based on 2A.

Those parts seem to be illegal at the moment. Against the 2A. Not getting with the times.

 

Only if the constitution is meaningless. Abortion isn't addressed in the constitution. It could be, theres legit ways to do that, no one seems interested. But if the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the constitution is ignored, so to can be the rest of it, including the Union that binds the states into a nation.

 

Find me one person during the ratification of the 14th that suggests that implies that abortions are constitutionally protected. If you can’t then there is absolutely no comparison to the 2nd and private ownership of arms

 

And the right to bear arms is ignored. We have several restrictions on arms bearing.

 

All persons BORN.
So I can't find 1 person, since unborn are not born nor persons.

 

The original intent of the 14th had zero to do with abortion. Find me one persons that states it did at the time of ratification. If you can’t then quit rambling

 

I never said it did.
But it is very implicit in stating, ALL PERSONs BORN. Which an unborn person isn't a part of.
You agree?

 

And no shortage of grievance to it. Every new restriction undermines the consent of the governed. At a certain point, the loss of consent will matter. The question is- do we really find out where specifically that point is?

 

the constitution makes no statement about insider trading either. should no one regulate this?

 

there is a "right to liberty" but how many founders freed their slaves?

under the very conservative theory of natural rights, women's right to terminate pregnancy was not derived from roe vs wade, but was endowed by their creator.

reference numbers chapter 5 for the "bitter water " used for abortion in the bronze age.

 

There are laws passed by legislatures against insider trading, just like there are laws against abortion passed by legislatures.

 

You responded to me with this line so apparently you think it rebuts my point and it doesn’t

 

It appears you're incorrect in stating my post is incorrect.

 

They already can, except for two reasons, 1) most states have gun rights in their constitutions, and 2) the incorporation doctrine under due process clause of the 14 Amendment trickles the 2nd Amendment down to the states.

 

No, there is only the 5 Amendment to the Constitution that says life cannot be taken without the due process of law.

 

SCOTUS has implied that universal gun right for all Americans in, for example, the Heller case in 2008.

The current SCOTUS is saying previous SCOTUS courts got it wrong with the Roe V. Wade decision. I'm wondering if the same current SCOTUS will venture into the waters of revisiting and/or reevaluating the Heller decision of 2008, for example?

If you want to know the actual intent of the congresscritters who ratified the 2ND amendment in 1791, read the notes and correspondence of those congresscritters of that time. Realize, the drafter of the 2ND amendment, J. Madison, surely wanted a universal right for gun ownership but after numerous redrafts and discussions of the finished amendment product which is available for all to see we get the seemingly 'convoluted' 2ND amendment which actually wasn't convoluted, IMO, if you realize the intent of the ratifiers of the 2ND.

 

The reason for my OP is to jab at the, IMO, authoritarians who laugh at those who wail and gnash their teeth over a proposal of no federal abortion rights (which isn't in The Constitution) but at the same time same said 'laughers of abortion advocates' are wailing and gnashing their teeth over the prospect of no federal gun rights (which also isn't in The Constitution, IMO).

It seems like a whole lot of Americans despise democracy unless that democracy agrees with their ideology. You realize despising democracy unless that democracy adheres to one's ideology is the definition of authoritarianism?

 

Actually, rights aren't general granted by the Constitution, they merely limit govt action or legislation on the matter. There was a debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists regarding protection of rights. Federalists see the Constitution as stating specific enumerated powers of the govt, while Anti-Federalists didn't trust that, so they demanded a Bill of Rights, of which ten were ratified.

 

Noted, too many people don't even read the Constitution. They just assume a lot of ****. Many also hate the Constitution for being limited, yet don't realize they have benefited all their lives from that limit.

 

That unilateral action by state prosecutors who're more concerned with equity than actually enforcing law and order isn't democracy, either.

 

Except the 2ND amendment was an amendment to regulate state militias since there was no federal standing army to protect the federal government.

In other words, anti-federalists with their consummate distrust of on overreaching federal government were the impetus behind most of the Bill of Rights original amendments except for the 2ND.
Even though Madison (who eventually became an anti-federalist probably over the prospect of losing slavery and other state's rights) helped to draft the Federalist Papers for NY state and also submitted the original draft for the 2ND, that original draft was picked apart until you no longer had a universal gun rights amendment but a regulation on states' militias amendment, IMO.

 

If you think the 2ND was written specifically as a universal gun rights amendment, you need to read the writings of those congresscritters in 1791 who ratified the 2ND.

SCOTUS has, IMO, incorrectly implied that the 2ND refers to universal gun rights for Americans with Heller V. DC., for example.

Will this version of SCOTUS revisit and rehash previous SCOTUS decisions on universal gun ownership in America like they're now revisiting and rehashing with the abortion issue and Roe v. Wade?