Should states decide on gun ownership?

I don't understand how your state could be "... one of the most restrictive states..." if you have no problem getting a firearm and a LTC (aka CCW).

Please clarify

 

Yep I'm still sure about that.

 

This is misinformation. IMO, the passage of the 2ND is that a well-regulated (state) army is needed to ensure a free state...Hence the federal asks for a well-regulated state militia, as well, since there are no standing armies yet.
The right of the people to keep (use guns for other than war) and bear (use guns in war) shall not be infringed. In other words, whatever the gun rights of Individuals in states, the federal and the 2ND agrees with the state gun ownership right. Which also means if the state doesn't have individual gun rights, that state non-right will also not be infringed.

The second amendment isn't ambiguous. IMO, it's just that so many people have tried to fit the square peg of universal gun rights for Americans into the round hole of the second amendment.

 

Are you one of those hypocrites who laugh at abortion advocates for sobbing about losing their abortion federal rights?

There isn't any abortion or, IMO, gun rights provisions in The Constitution or its amendments.

 

This is misinformation.

 

This is misinformation. Read the 2ND. Read the writings of the dudes who ratified the 2ND in 1791. Pay no attention to the SCOTUS decisions which implied universal gun ownership for Americans like Heller V. DC. in 2008.

IMO, the 2ND was originally ratified as a regulation of state militias That's why people are so confused by the language of the 2ND: They think the 2ND is something it isn't. IMO, the 2ND isn't a universal gun ownership amendment.

 

You don't care about democracy?

 

What the heck does your post mean? Explain please.

 

Meh. You have to understand the language of the guys who ratified the 2ND amendment.

 

How do you, for example, explain the very first passage of the 2ND which emphasizes the need of the state to regulate state militias?

 

The second amendment doesn't guarantee universal gun ownership rights, IMO. That's the interpretative mistake that SCOTUS has been making over and over and over again. Just like SCOTUS, for example, first thought slaves were property.

 

Democracy is a system. Overall a good one. But still just a system.

 

Tench Coxe explained it as the states rights to gather an army and to maintain their citizens as their fighting force. But the right to bear and own are the individuals and the peoples right. Point is I can find quotes from esteemed people stating that in our history. But you won’t find one quote ever claiming that the constitution gives rights to abortion at the democratic time of ratification, or during the ratification of any amendment. Meaning the right of abortion is a made up right. The right to bear is not. Not even a close comparison at all.

 

I’m not a fan of democracy at all. A republic I’m okay with but a democracy is evil

 

Actually that's not true since militias are addressed in the main text of the Constitution Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2.

 

Hear ye hear ye!!! Let's witness a prime example of sillyhead hyperbole over 2A.

 

I have. Suffice it to say you have no idea what you're talking about like every other amendment save one there is only one exception and that is due process.

 

At least there is some room for discussion in your example. While we can all agree on no personal nuke ownership, the majority of gun laws do nothing to make us safer.

Can you explain why someone that would risk the penalty for committing murder would not risk violating a gun law?
If someone already owns a firearm, that purpose it the 10 day waiting period for additional firearm purchases?
Why is a firearm that is designed so that the webbing between the thumb and forefinger is below the level of the top of the trigger more dangerous? (Yes, thats an actual law in CA)

All these mindless, arbitrary gun laws do nothing to make us safer while serving criminals with unarmed victims.

Im not saying that grenades and claymores should be sold at Big 5, but lets not pretend that people can't make them out of a pressure cooker and some marbles.

 

It's all their in plain english. It shall not be infringed. Adding all the extra words you are trying to throw in is unnecessary and misleading.

 

What right do you think the 2A does guarantee?

 

Except it has been....starting as far back as 1934

 

Yeah, I used guns vs "arms". 'scuse me.

 

I think the Heller case was unique. The first Supreme Court case that involved an individual right to bear arms was United States v Cruikshank, which basically allowed freed slaves This was actually the very first case that which the Supreme Court ruled an individual right to bear arms. It further confirmed that individual right to bear arms under Presser v Illinois. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has been consistent with the other side of the second amendment is that with a "well-regulated militia" the Supreme Court has upheld "reasonable" regulations through the commerce clause. This is where background checks, the Federal Firearms Act of 1934, and other such legislation in which firearms can be regulated through the interstate commerce clause.

I think with the Heller case, Washington DC went too far in its regulations, and why I think Heller was the correct decision. However, both sides have misinterpreted the decision and some on the "pro-second amendment" side think the Heller case gives individuals the right to own any firearm or not to have any regulations. BS. The Heller case only dealt with the right issue and not the interstate commerce issue within the Second amendment.

Precedents rarely get overturned in our history. The last one, in my opinion, was Brown v Board of Education, which overturned the precedent of Plessy v Furguson, the separate but equal doctrine used from 1880s to the 1950s. Both of these cases had the 14th amendment, and equal protection clause, and both interpreted the 14th amendment based on the politics of that time, among other things.

And if Roe v Wade is overturned, that would be a great Supreme Court Shock than the Brown v Board of Education decision in which a significant precedent was overturned.

Furthermore, if Roe v Wade is overturned, then all precedents, including Constitutional Regulations guaranteed under the commerce clause, would be at risk. Further at risk are equal protection decisions on hot topics such as Plyler v Doe, which Texas Gov Abbott may consider challenging next.

I can see the Supreme Court, in the Mississippi case, not really overturning Roe v Wade, but to use broad interstate commerce powers interpretation to put "reasonable standards" test on what is and what is not acceptable for abortions. But I am not sure if Alito or Thomas would agree to such a solution to the abortion issue.

 

absolutely. Our consititution was written to prevent govenment from exceeding the authority we established as appropriate. There are mechanisms in place to adjust the constitution if desired.

 

Go for it! There is a process to do precisely that. I'm quite sure you won't get the required support for whatever updates you envision, but there's nothing at all stopping you from trying.

@cabse5 you should probably read up on the Heller decision, it's already put most of the ridiculous things you've said about the 2A to rest. And they're likely to expand on that in a decision expected soon on a case out of NY.