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

This is an outright falsehood.

 

there is no valid support for federal gun control other than the incredibly dishonest actions of the FDR administration. Liberals often whine about the Scalia decision but they have to admit that if the federal gun control powers that come purely from a fiction that the FDR court created in the commerce clause, then they have to live with the Scalia decision. You claim you really aren't interested in this subject. Perhaps you should defer to those of us who have a professional background in constitutional law as I do

 

gun banners posting falsehoods-Oh shocked I am, shocked I tell you!!!

 

except the bible isn't relevant in determining the validity of laws.

 

Let’s step over into another thread then and discuss what the basis is to determine the validity of laws.

 

I like the outcome of the Heller decision for the most part. Guns are so prevalent in the US that the DC law simply placed law abiding folks at the mercy of criminals with respect to guns. I believe that it is true that requiring long guns to be secured in the manner prescribed by the DC law effectively negated one's ability to rely upon them for self-defense in a home invasion scenario. I disagree with the decision that only Heller had standing, as it was clear that filing for the permit would have been a waste of time for the others.

However, I also see that there are practices in other countries that beg the question of whether or not we can do better. This, also however, is exceedingly problematic for several reasons. One of which regards your bitch about Federal overreach based on whatever tidbits from the Constitution you care to scratch up to support your position. If California outlaws phased plasma rifles in the 40 Watt range but they are readily available in Nevada...? How does that work?

I will defer to your expertise provided you demonstrate it, here, in writing, by taking the time to craft your own arguments rather than simply baffle me with links the way Jack, for example, almost invariably likes to do to support his positions. Again, what is the Constitutional basis for allowing the President to declare war? Were I to perform a gap assessment on this issue with respect to the Constitution the first bit of relevant data I see is that 1.8 lists several responsibilities concerning the military belong to the Congress, but 2.2 provides for the President to be the CnC of the Army, Navy and the State Militias when called into Federal service. So little attention to detail is prevalent with respect to the Constitution that an Amendment to formally include the Air Force, much less the Space Force, has ever to my knowledge even been proposed, much less ratified. If you are going to argue that the Constitution is the basis for all laws within the Federal government and equally so for the State's Constitutions with respect to State governments then how many amendments should we have by now for the US Constitution? A thousand? More than 27 anyway?

I am interested in the subject, obviously, but it is not among my priorities is what I wrote. Probably I am for the most part in favor of the freedumb to own guns of all sorts in the US and since I can do that, I'd rather write about stuff that I can't do, like go to a doctor that actually has time to see me, or buy some epinephrine in the drug store as easily as I can buy ammo from Lucky Gunner. Excluding Covid 19, discussions about health care reform here at PF are few and far between. Because our topics here are event driven by the news for the most part.

I wasn't aware that Heller had "settled" the issue regarding the poorly worded 2A. Given the current staff on the Scotus - it seems way more than likely it will remain "settled" for the rest of my life, as I don't expect any Constitutional Amendment will be proposed or passed within my lifetime on any subject.

 

As I said, the Standard Model.

 

You are both correct, IMHO.

 

It's damn near insolvable in such case then. But, I was asking a question whereas Tog 6 was making an assertion. I do not place the value on any portion of the Constitution that lots of others do. This nation was founded with an amazing foundation in political philosophy that contributed to ending monarchies about a century later in all of Europe. Very very few remain. However, the Constitution itself, taken alone and without context, is a document containing one very serious fatal flaw due to political compromise and expediency. Furthermore, its upkeep, or more specifically the lack thereof, negates much of the value that some attempt to credit toward it in an attempt to find answers to complicated questions.

 

What is that "serious fatal flaw?"

 

It is the flaw that led directly to the US civil war.

 

Ah. Slavery. Fair enough.

 

my "bitch" is the lack of any article one section eight proper authority for the federal government to regulate firearms. The entire creation of the UNITED STATES was one where the states actually passed laws that impacted the actions of private citizens while the federal government powers were mostly and properly limited to the actions of the several states and the nation as a whole, The founders never intended the FEDERAL government to tell a farmer in Ohio that he could not grow wheat for his own use

 

that was due to a lack of coverage, rather than the actual wording of the document. and the amendment process solved that going forward

 

Please. I do not think that I wasted my time developing my response to you simply because you chuse to not respond fully to the points I raised. But, you have not offered anything resembling the skills and abilities I would expect to see from a Yale graduate Constitutional Law expert as you claim to be in the effort you've put forth with this response. Please address the rest of my post. Myself and others could actually maybe learn something if you indeed possess the credentials you claim to hold. Or, have I, in fact, shut you down, even with your experience, simply by asserting the obvious lack of connection between the current US Constitution, its Amendments, and the vast number of Federal Laws covering innumerable topics from A-to-Z?

 

oh ffs, actual wording of the document? lack of coverage? please. if you have the qualifications you claim to have then the only explanation for such an incoherent post as this is that you just don't care to make your point here at PF properly.

 

The threat posed by people misusing firearms hasn't changed since the 2A was written, and repealing it wont change that threat either. Nor has the fact that you are the only one liable for your own safety and security just as I am for mine. Any argument supporting the regulation and restriction of my ability to arm myself must first be predicated upon a demonstration of how violent criminals will be prevented from getting illegal weapons that I, a law abiding citizen, will not be able to use to equalize my defense against. Without such a demonstration, the aforementioned argument is just a thinly veiled (or hastily unreasoned) attempt to establish me as either a perpetual victim dependent upon the state, or a criminal.

And just for the record, muskets were popular when the 2A was written because they were cheap. Revolvers and other milti-shot weapons were expensive, but they were common enough that the founders knew the 2A would enable mass murderers. They did so because it also enables a defense against mass murder.

 

Dude. Revolvers in 1789? The Constitution and its amendments foresaw and considered Adam Lanza? ****....

 

The Puckle Gun and the Chambers 'machine gun' were both being manufactured for military use in the 1700s. Granted they were 'crew served' weapons, but the only reason they weren't scaled down for manufacture as personal defense weapons was that there simply werent very many individuals with enough wealth to create a market that would make such an endeavor profitable. There were however a variety of weapons being made 'piecemeal' for wealthy individuals who wanted an edge over the common bandit with the common single-shot blunderbuss they might encounter on the road. They might not fit the definition of 'revolver' we use today ...but what else would you call it?




other types of 'repeaters' (for lack of a better word):



i don't see a lock on this one, so its probably percussion cap, which would mean its post-1820, but its highly probable a flintlock version of something similar also existed prior to that.


the point being, technology when the 2A was written had advanced far beyond single shot weapons. Its just that the economy hadn't caught up to make them ubiquitous. To suggest the writers of the 2A only intended for one-shyot muskets to be commonly available is to suggest they thought these weapons that they certainly knew existed would never be improved upon nor would ever be attainable by the common people. Which I don't think is representative of their purpose for writing the constitution and founding America at all...

 

I think those who actually care about the subject (something you denied you do) understand perfectly well what I am saying

To determine if government action is proper, there is two part inquiry

1) does the governmental unit in question have the jurisdiction to actually act in the given area. If the answer is yes then we go to part two

2) is action that the government may have facially, the power to do-prevented by superseding or superior authority

In the case of the federal government-gun control was NOT a power properly delegated to it by either the constitution or a subsequent amendment so properly, the tenth amendment prevents federal gun control. Sadly, a Corrupt FDR regime ignored that and now we go to #2 (conveniently also the Second amendment) which prevents any such federal infringement

 

If I have a firearm-even a single shot musket-it takes no stretch of the imagination to contemplate one that shoots faster. Anyone who raced in the Indy 500 100 years ago could certainly imagined cars that can do 240 MPH

claiming the founders could not have foreseen a machine gun is specious nonsense as you have noted

 

Also fair enough.

 

as you well know -the attempt to say denigrate the second amendment is based on the specious claims that the second amendment didn't cover blacks. that is not due to a flaw in these second amendment nor the bill of rights but rather by what the founders saw as "men". once that flaw was remedied, the bill of rights didn't change, merely the coverage did

 

Revolvers did not exist in 1787. Your failure to make note of a glaringly obvious detail throws into question the credibility of the rest of your post which I won't bother to check for that reason.

 

Got skunked, ran away.
Is there some kind of financial reason for continuing to start these threads? Nothing is changing and no one with seems interested in dealing with the real issues involving people who commit to most gun crime.