Should states decide on gun ownership?

When are you gonna read the writings and thoughts of the ratifiers of the 2ND way back in 1791? Hum?

 

It is very clear that there are just as many authoritarians who're reading things into The Constitution about abortion rights (which don't exist in The Constitution, BTW) as there are authoritarians who're reading things into The Constitution about universal gun rights (which don't exist in The Constitution, BTW).

After 16 pages of this thread, my thought experiment (this thread) proves that.

Side note: Because there are so many authoritarians in American society (it's my way or the highway kinda people, er, people who refuse to compromise) American government is doomed. The bad guys won and destroyed American government in the process.

 

Actually that's not how the Constitution works. One clause doesn't make another of no effect, unless it's an amendment for that specific purpose. Unfortunately for you the commerce clause was put in place to assure commerce, not stop it.

 

Rights aren't negotiable, because you either have them or you don't. People seeking compromise want you to give up your rights to satisfy their agenda.

 

The DOI is not a document that gives all answers to federal government's complex matters. In fact, DOI material is like the evidence that's admissible in court but not the deciding factor to answer said complex matters of federal government...The Constitution is such said document.

 

There's no ambiguity in the 2ND amendment if you read the thinking of the ratifiers of the 2ND. The guys (courts) who've constantly misinterpreted the 2ND into a universal gun rights amendment have created the problem of the misinterpretation of the 2ND.

 

So? People don't want to give up abortion rights, either (which also aren't in The Constitution).

 

I'm claiming the 2ND amendment originally submitted by J. Madison as a 'universal gun rights amendment' was debated reworded and reworked by the first congress in 1791 into an amendment whose sole goal was to regulate state militias since the federal US government relied on state militias for protection.

According to the ratifiers, the intent of the 2ND is in the first stanza of the 2ND (usually the most important part of the paragraph is at the beginning) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (or free federal government)...in other words, IMO, a regulation on state militias to maintain some semblance of quality of state militias,...but then...hold on...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (that right supplied by state legislation and constitutions), shall not be infringed (by the federal).

The 2ND was intended on being a regulation on state militias. The 2ND didn't want the federal to infringe on the Arms rights (all weapons. Both those Arms used in war and otherwise) established by states.

The limitation on the federal in the 2ND is the ending phrase: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (established by states) shall not be infringed (by the federal)

Side note: I've ofttimes wondered why Arms was capitalized. My guess is Arms meant any weapons (used in war or otherwise), ya know, the bearing and keeping of Arms respectively.

 

I never made that argument. The 2a establishes two things, militias and the right to bear arms. It does not, however, discuss anything about how to ship, produce, trade, or sell such weapons. That part is exclusive to the interstate commerce clause. Two clauses both complement and contradict each other in the Constitution. The first Supreme Court cases involving the 2a were the militias. States generally have the right to establish their own militias. We see this in-state militia such as the Texas State Militia for instance. The Federal government can also establish a militia, the modern equivalent is the National Guard in which states have control during peacetime. The other part is the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed. This applies to state law in which states would try to prohibit, arbitrarily, gun ownership. The Court, especially since Presser v Illinois, prohibits that. However, when the 1934 Firearms Act was established, it was challenged and has been challenged every time. The principle authority for that act is not the 2a, but the interstate commerce clause. The right to bear arms does not mean unlimited ownership, it means to own a firearm. In those days people owned firarms for defense, hunting, etc, and then they used that same firearm if called by the militia to defend the Indian Raiders or something similar or to create regiments during the early days of the Civil War where in the first Battle of Bull Run, there was no uniform code, flag, or anything you will see on TV today.

Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. We do with with imports where quaritines are in place for certain fruits and vegetables, we do this when selling firearms across state lines, etc. It is one of the most broad powers Congress has, thanks to the Supreme Court.

 

Citizens always had rights to own guns, before there was a Constitution. It was common sense that it needn't be restated, but on the insistence of the Anti-Federalists, a Bill of Rights was amended. This forbid the federal government to infringe upon gun rights of the people, for obvious reasons; that appear to escape you.

 

Arms is capitalized because nouns were often capitalized in grammar at the time. You need to read their letters, and other writings.

 

The 2A establishes nothing, except a block on federal involvement in arms or abolishing militias. Militias and firearm ownership predate the US and state constitutions. You somehow have concocted this notion or putting modern liberal thinking upon the founders. Sorry, but nothing in the founders minds ever resembled modern liberal thought. When they called themselves liberals, they were more conservative than today's conservatives. The King of England tried taking their arms, and a war started over it. So you need to change your perspective what you think to what the truth really is. Your post sounds like what you want us to think you actually believe, but I doubt it. I hightlighted the statement you made to use to limit gun ownership, to likely whatever you want to believe. But you belief is nothing like the 2A or the founders intended.

 

When their "thoughts" become constitutional law. We are obligated to follow law- not thoughts that didn't make the cut.
I realize you want to dilute the argument with those things, but they just are not on the table.

 

The Ministry of Truth has flagged your post as disinformation.

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

Thanks. You're making my point for me. Those Arms rights for citizens are in state constitutions not the federal.

 

Thanks for that info about capitalization of nouns in the 18th century.

 

Isn't an amendment (like the 2nd amendment) used to construct and validate federal laws?

 

I guess you also refuse to read the writings of the ratifiers of the 2ND way back in 1791.

 

Read the book "The First Congress" by F. Bordewich.

 

Nothing in that book proves your point..
Disagree?
Copy/paste the text to that effect.

 

Nothing in those writings proves your point.
Disagree?
Cite the writing and copy/paste the text to that effect.

 

And yet, none of the state constitutions - grant - the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Absolute nonsense.
The 2nd confers ZERO power to any government, and the regulation of the militia is a power granted to Congress by the constitution.
Your statement has no basis in fact.

 

They are a kind of litmus test; any law that is considered to violate the constitution is invalid, and the supreme court has the final say on that. But the test starts with the letter of the law, of the amendment, the arguments are generally looking for ways to evade that.