Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

should others send people at you?

 

It's of marginal interest to me personally the whole 2A argument. I'd willingly and happily surrender my two pistols and my rifle for a non-employer dependent reasonably rational health care system if that were my only option and trade-off to get it done. Not really a valid trade-off logically for any particular reason. Just conversating here at PF though it's a point I will continue to offer whenever anyone wants to exchange thoughts about gun rights and gun laws, I will always consistently I hope, argue lets do something about turning medical and pharma into a more utilitarian systems first. And the madness of it, gun homicides that is, is realistically statistically not significant in terms of mortality causes in the US.

Interestingly, I can reference my previous post in this thread: you are way more likely to die in a traffic accident than in a gun homicide. Presently in my life there is nothing more dangerous I do than drive to and from work. Do you drive much these days PdS? How is your vision? Mine is significantly less than what it once was. Should there be more rigorous DL requirements as we grow older? More frequent test periods? 79 - eye exam, you're good, see you next year? Yearly minimum eye exams after 72 to carry a DL: how about that?

I don't see many folks here strongly opposed to gun legislation argue their position is based on guns providing any sort of barrier to a tyrannical government. Thankfully. That type of argument is almost completely without merit, although I've conceded a bit of a break to @modernpaladin about his thoughts on the issue because in a way this guy is living a little bit it seems to me of a life that would have and still would suit me well. Crib in the country in Oregon with no one to worry about except myself is wicked appealing.

What I do see though and agree with are the arguments that criminals dgaf about the law as it is, so for those that do gaf about the law: legal possession and carry balances the books - balances the battle between big bad primates and old tired short fat people like me. Or 19 year old girls with hammers.

 

here are some inconvenient question for your side

1) why is it that gun controllers target firearms rarely used in crime if CRIME CONTROL is the motivation

2) why is it that almost every single fan of more restrictions on honest gun owners a left-winger

3) why do anti gunners always direct their hatred towards lawful gun owners and not criminals?

Answer-Because crime control is not what motivates the vast majority of gun controllers

 

Interesting. You both agree that repeal of the 2A is the barrier that must be overcome? @Patricio Da Silva

 

Yes.
They admit the 2nd Amendment prevents doing whatever they think must be done to address the crisis they claim.

The enshrinement of constitutional rights, necessarily and intentionally, takes certain policy choices off the table.

 

They can, they will be stopped.

 

HF dude. I disagree. The gun control angst is due to these horrific incidents that would not happen if the US tightened up its laws to reduce the availability and sheer volume of guns in the US. The focus from the politicians in response is toward ARs. This is because they accurately assess that going for revolvers and pistols is a far more difficult battle. Unlikely because they have some sort of insidious plot knowing that an AR represents a more realistic threat to a tyrannical government than a 9mm pistol.

Just a quick thought. Open to discuss....

 

by who-other men with guns? LOL

 

Oh I agree-the sheeple who give money to groups like the Brady thugs or Everytown for Bloomberg gun bans are motivated by crime. These people tend to be low wattage reactionaries who want SOMETHING DONE and rarely have a clue about the real issues. However, those who lead such groups-such as scum like Bloomberg or Schumer etc, it has nothing to do with crime control other than perhaps serving as a facade when these people wish to pander to the voters and don't want to do anything that would cause a major constituency group to call them "racist" or "reactionary" etc.

it's almost all political when you get to the upper echelons of the gun restrictionist, anti rights activists.

 

The 2A as written is unclear and that's being generous. I do not necessarily agree with the point we find ourselves in today that the courts are the final arbiters of the meaning of the constitution and of all law with respect to it - effectively giving 9 unelected and unaccountable judges power over all of the laws of the nation.

I acknowledge the Heller decision made it an individual right, but I do not acknowledge that is based on the words as written in the 2A.

 

that's not the issue. I am talking about Article One Section Eight. Find me anything in that that justifies federal gun control. You cannot. It took FDR's pet monkey months to make something up

 

You've overloaded your point with specifics that convolute individuals into it, like Bloomberg, for me anyway. Any chance you might clean up your point a bit? I'm not really familiar with the actions of special interest groups on the left and on the right I'm only familiar a bit with the unfortunate high profile bs of the NRA and LaPierre especially. And this is not a passionate debate topic for me. As I've mentioned a few times here and there at PF. So, if I fade out, no disrespect intended....

 

its simple-gun control is a false flag for crime control. It's nothing more than a political weapon that left-wingers use against people who don't share their big government collectivist beliefs. As a national review article I posted recently noted-gun banners see gun owners as "icky" and want to punish us for having views that disturb the left's sense of wokeness

 

That's a bold statement. 1.8 is no where near as tightly written as you assert, imo. In fact, the entire Constitution is not tight enough for very many things that are currently active - such as the power of the President to carry the football. Where is the Constitutional basis for the power of the President to Burn all of King George's island nation to cinders should he so chuse?

 

ok fine. forget them. let's discuss it outside of other's opinions on the matter. you're a bit off in the rabbit hole worrying about leftists without a clue on the topic. there are legit issues. if we could magically vanish every gun on Earth - what would that sci fi scenario look like?

 

flamethrowers and grenades, RPGs and Claymore mines. Can you find something in Article One Section Eight which actually was intended to empower the federal government to be able to ban firearms of any type. I sure cannot

 

That is NOT the argument being made in the OP. I cannot speak for others.

Once upon a time, many on the right supported gun control. To wit:

1. Gun Control Act of 1968: This was a bipartisan bill, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson
   
   
2. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993: This bill, named after former White House Press Secretary James Brady who was shot during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for firearms purchases. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, but was a bipartisan bill.
   
   
3. Assault Weapons Ban of 1994: This bill, which was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, imposed a 10-year ban on the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic firearms. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and was bipartisan.
   
   
4. Background Checks Expansion of 2021: This bill, signed into law by President Joe Biden, expands the requirement for background checks on firearms purchases to include sales made at gun shows and online. Some Republicans, including Senators Susan Collins and Pat Toomey, supported the bill.

These are just a few examples of Republicans supporting gun control measures. It's important to note that the issue of gun control is complex and highly debated, and support for gun control legislation has varied over time and among different Republicans.

Democrats and liberals can't help the fact that of late the many on the right have gone so far to the right that moderate republicans appear to be democrats..

It appears that the right has forgotten the true meaning of left and right, and in that measure, your point is meaningless.

Firstly, it's important to acknowledge that the issue of gun control is a complex and highly debated topic, and individuals have varying opinions and perspectives on the issue. Accusations of hatred or ill-motivation towards one side or the other are not productive in advancing the conversation.

Regarding your claim that crime control is not the primary motivation of gun controllers, this may not be accurate for all individuals or groups advocating for gun control measures. For some, reducing gun violence and preventing crimes involving firearms may be a primary motivation. For others, the goal may be to ensure that firearms are used safely and responsibly, or to address concerns related to the easy availability of firearms. There is a wide range of motivations and perspectives on this issue, and it's important to acknowledge and understand them.

Finally, it's not productive or respectful to address individuals in a rude or dismissive manner, regardless of their views or opinions on an issue. Constructive and respectful dialogue is key to finding common ground and making progress on complex issues like gun control.

 

Doesn't matter. The issue has been resolved by Heller v Washington D.C.

 

I agree. Scalia has invented grammar that did not exist at the time 2A was written, notably, 'prefatory clause' etc. In point of fact, the concept of a "prefatory clause" in the context of legal interpretation was not used in the late 18th century when the Second Amendment was written and ratified. The term "prefatory clause" did not gain widespread use in legal interpretation until the 20th century. To wit;

See "Interpretive Turns: A Historical Study of Prefacing in American Constitutional Interpretation" by Jeremy D. Bailey, which appeared in the Utah Law Review in 2010. The article provides an in-depth examination of the development of the concept of "prefatory clauses" in American constitutional interpretation, and shows that the term and concept did not gain widespread use until the 20th century.

Another relevant source is "The Second Amendment in the Twentieth Century: An Overview" by David E. Vandercoy, which appeared in the Akron Law Review in 2005. This article provides a historical overview of the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the development of the concept of a "prefatory clause" in the context of legal interpretation.

These are just two examples of the many scholarly articles, treatises, and essays that address the development of the concept of "prefatory clauses" in legal interpretation and its relationship to the Second Amendment.

 

Gun banners are invariably dishonest one way or another and want to infringe on our rights. I see them as enemies of freedom and enemies of the constitution. None of those laws you cited were authored by Republicans. True, some RINOS voted for them but they were sponsored by Democrats, authored by Democrats and mainly supported by Democrats. The Democrat party is the party of gun banning

 

Duh. I think you are addressing the wrong poster.

 

two minor league law reviews. Can you find one that say matches Sanford Levinson's "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" that was in the Yale Law Journal?

 

Appeal to authority, looks like to me. Argue your point in your own words dude.

 

Discussing any topic with the Constitution as its foundation is, to me, the equivalent of playing whack-a-mole, or the equivalent of interpreting the Bible

 

Presently I haven’t the time to pursue the articles you mention, but, is it more or less accurate to assume that the term is almost entirely based on the confusing lack of the proper use of plain English grammar in the 2A?