History 102: Which people form part of a well-regulated militia?

California and New York have already demonstrated how they will use such regulations to implement a defacto ban on gun ownership.

 

the gun banners don't seem to understand that when they constantly slander gun owners and complain about us, we aren't going to believe them when they claim their schemes are motivated by public safety, not harassment

 

They're Leftists. They're incapable of anything else, no matter what the topic is.

 

If gun control really was a rational attempt to control violent criminals, then we would expect to see lots of conservatives who DO NOT own guns pushing for it. we do not

 

All natural rights have the force of law.

Any government that violates natural rights is a criminal regime. The US government can and should wage war to destroy all such governments around the world.

His question's premise is valid and correct.

The entire Constitution is clear cut. If anyone believes that there is a part of the Constitution that is unclear, they do not understand what it says. It has a clear meaning though, despite their lack of understanding.

Anyone who imposes any other endpoint is a criminal.

If society needs to alter the Constitution, the proper way to do that is by Constitutional amendment.

And, as it happens, the freedom that our Constitution protects is timeless and forever. Society will always benefit from freedom.

It is required to always apply the will of those who wrote the Constitution.

The idea that modern society has "nuances" that mean that we somehow do not value freedom, is nonsense.

There are no such nuances. Commerce means the same today as it did then.

It is very well documented. Note the Tenth Amendment.

This discussion is occurring because you are making untrue claims and people are correcting your untrue claims.

The fact that you are making these untrue claims is not evidence that the untrue claims have any legitimacy.

It was both. There is no difference between the two. The militia is all the individuals of the United States.

Heller was when the Supreme Court finally started upholding the Second Amendment.

The notion that the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to individuals has never been a credible position.

Exactly. And gun control was never delegated to the federal government.

The proper interpretations remain the same.

It is a clear cut historical fact that FDR deliberately and maliciously violated the Constitution.

The answer is straightforward. People who advocate gun control are criminals.

The intent of the Founding Fathers is completely clear.

Yes. To do otherwise is a crime.

The ones who do not are criminals.

It is clearly based on the text of the Tenth Amendment.

Going against the intent of the framers is a crime against the American people.

What would possibly be wrong with them structuring the Constitution so that slavery could be abolished?

Would you rather they structured the Constitution so that slavery could continue forever?

The fact that the left denies reality does not mean that there is any sort of legitimate debate over whether reality exists.

That's not a license to violate people's civil liberties.

It is workable. The lower courts just don't want to uphold the Constitution.

The Supreme Court will crack down on them harder and harder until they comply.

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is true that no one can refute your claim that the argument was not settled until Heller.

So what?

Given the fact that machine guns have already been banned, anyone who wants to ban them likely is highly delusional.

Given the fact that existing regulations were clearly adequate to prevent them from being used in crimes, that ban is unjustified and should be repealed.

So in other words, you don't care about saving lives. You just hate Americans, and you want to violate our civil liberties.

As if it even mattered whether a murder victim is killed with a gun or with some other kind of weapon.

Murder victims are just as dead no matter what kind of weapon is used to kill them.

The fact that no one can point out any errors in our logic says otherwise.

No one is ever going to excuse a position that America's civil liberties should be violated because you hate Americans.

That is incorrect. Freedom is just as precious today as it always was.

His characterization is true. You hate Americans for being Americans.

Completely untrue. As you admitted above, the only point of gun control is to violate our civil liberties because you hate us. Since gun control is not even about trying to save lives, blocking gun control does not cost a single life.

So in other words we need to keep voting for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump) because the left hates America and will violate our civil liberties if ever given a chance.

There is a way to separate law abiding Americans from criminals. The law abiding Americans are the ones who aren't committing crimes.

But even if it was not possible to tell the difference, it would still be illegal to violate our civil liberties.

Nonsense. Gun control has nothing to do with trying to save lives. You admitted above that the point of gun control is about hating America and violating our civil liberties.

There isn't.

The fact that gun control has nothing to do with even trying to save lives means that there is no justification for it.

You've been quite clear about your callous disregard for our civil liberties.

People need to always vote for Republicans or bad things are in store for us all.

 

Without law, they have force. Natural rights is philosophy, and though philophy shapes law, it has no force of law until there is law.

If all you can do is repeat the same nonsense, I shall ignore because you are not adding anything more substantive to counter the above fact.

More philosophical horse manure.

That is the rationalization all tyrants and fascists use.

I have no idea who you are talking about. Your premise wasn't valid, that much I can say.

That is almost absurd as it is arrogant. The very fact you make such a claim, so cavalierly, diminishes your 1. credibility, 2. your authority, 3, your education, 4, your competence on the subject.

Supreme arrogance is the notion that anyone who disagrees with you is a criminal. You should meditate on that, it's not very flattering. It's how fascists think.

constitutional amendment is for radical changes. Scotus interpretation is for modernization.
You are of the 'constitution is a rigid document' school, that is as death school. Noting that is alive and well in this universe is static. Static is death. Fluid is life, a living, breathing, document subject to interpretation and modernization, without radical changes, but subtle changes to mend with the changing world, is necessary, and we know this to be a fact because of the broad language, even ambiguous language in places, of the constitution. A good way to kill a nation by attrition would be to tie it to an unmovable object, which is precisely what you would like to do.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS, whom you call criminal, disagree with you. And you did call them criminal, because they do interpret, modernize, the constitution (without changing it radically, which is domain of the amendment).

Nothing is forever. Absolute freedom is fantasy. All rights are subject to regulation, period.

I'm sorry, but I'm not one who accepts in totality and absolution those who pontificated about 'all men are created equal', but a few days later went to the market to bid on human beings to enslave them. A good justice will feel the same way, and anyone who doesn't, in my view, is a sad sack.

Clearly, you do not understand the axiom that absolutes do not exist in the physical universe, nor do they exist in the metaphorical universe, nor the philosophical universe, nor any universe.

In it's most simplified definition, but in practice is where regulation is subject to modernization due to the increased complexity of modern society. Did they have cell phones and computers in 1787? No, which is why a regulation 'section 230' wasn't need then, but is a good thing, today.

Your comment doesn't negate mine.

Well, history is replete with examples of those whose arrogant assumptions about their correctness were wrong all along. Don't be so sure you are not in that category.

Your argument doesn't rise above 'you're wrong', and 'you're wrong' comments are not arguments.

Once upon a time, but no longer.

Nice opinion, but that's all it is. No, Heller arose to settle an unsettled argument. If that weren't true, Heller wouldn't exist. Since you are not offering anything of substance to refute that argument, your position on that point is rejected.

That isn't the point, the point is that the argument wasn't a settled argument until Heller.

Correct on the declarative statement (affirming my statement was correct). But you are wrong on the second: The U.S. Constitution, through the Second Amendment, provides a foundation for federal authority over firearms regulation. Furthermore, over time, the federal government has enacted several laws to regulate firearms across the nation, such as the NFA, the FFA and the GCA, and other subsequent regulations aimed at controlling the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms and ammunition. Thus, while the specifics of gun control have evolved, the federal government has been involved in firearms regulation, demonstrating that the claim overlooks the complex history and legal framework of gun control in the United States.

Proper is whatever the SCOTUS rules and clearly, their interpretations have evolved on some points, over time.

Whatever.

People who advocate against gun control promote the death of children, and that suggests they are worse than criminals, but inclusive of them.

We should uphold their intent as it applies to modernity, and reject where society's evolutions conflict. A static philosophy is a dead philosophy.

Static philosophy is a dead philosophy.

Great men are not arrogant. Little men are.

Wrong again. The amendment does not specifically address gun control but rather speaks to the broader principle of the allocation of powers between the federal government and the states. Federal gun control legislation is based on the constitutional powers granted to Congress and has been upheld by the Supreme Court under these powers.

You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment. You have twisted it to conform to a right wing narrative which is utterly bunk.

Horse manure. There is no inherent obligation to conform to framer intent, nor did the framers want us to. You have an absolutist attitude which bears little resemblence to the needs of modernity. Some interpretations and adjustments are not radical enough to warrant an amendment, and never will be. You call justices who do not see eye to eye with you as a criminal, and that claim is pure arrogance, which discredits you.

Your entire position lacks scholarship.

Whatever

Regulation does not equal violation of civil liberties, as no liberty is absolute.

We'll just have to disagree on that point.

A meaningless statement.

 

So what?

Well, so...., if you agree then there is no dispute over the idea that the debate between the second amendment applying to citizens outside of a militia or in the context of a militia, that this wasn't settled until Heller, then we agree and there is no dispute.

I'd call it a quasi ban. If you can afford one (pre 1986 manufacture), and are willing to go through the red tape to get one, you can own one. For those who can't, it's an effective ban, hence 'quasi'. And then there are a lot more regulations at the state level.

You think Hughes amendment should be repealed? What are your thoughts on it?

I'm one who believes sickness shouldn't be promoted, advocated, allowed to propagate, where the result, overall, is death. Now, some might argue pornography is a sickness, but since it's rather harmless, I don't view it in the same light as gun worship.

I don't hate those who are sick, but I pity them but we should not praise them.

I'm willing to be that someone whose life is being threatened, would rather deal with someone with a knife than a gun. See? You're missing the point. Your odds of living are better with one, and less with the other. Guess which one?

See above.

I just did.

Your state has a false assumption, see above. But one could argue you hate those who disagree with you. See how it feels to have a statement with a false premise levied at you?

Congratulations. You've committed a classic strawman.

See above.

The data proves you wrong.

Given that the bulk of executive branch crime is committed by Republicans, I'd say Democrats are better for America.

Then you'll be happy when Trump is behind bars.

America, being of only 230 something years of age, as countries of thousands of years of age go, is a baby. When a baby abuses a toy, it's time to take the toy away.

I admitted no such thing. You do have a propensity to make sh*t up, though.
I said I have an aversion to sick people, though I don't hate them, i pity them.

Liberty is not absolute, and subject to regulation, as all rights and liberties are.
Regulation, contrary to your right wing narrative, doesn't equal 'violation'.

That's false. Gun control is about saving lives.

You've been quite clear about making sh*t up.

I don't vote criminals, sorry. History reveals that the GOP is a runaway crime syndicate, and the most corrupt, most criminal one of them all, Trump, is it's leader.

 

that basically is a bunch of weasel words that deny that the constitution means anything. Those who oppose what the constitution clearly states often make these claims

that's unmitigated bullshit. those who push laws that they claim will control criminals but only restrict the rights on non-lawbreakers are those who actually support criminals and wish to make their trade safer. There is no evidence that Left wing gun control schemes save children's lives but there is overwhelming proof such schemes harass lawful gun owners

the only lives leftwing gun control saves is that of violent felons and others that are justifiably shot by armed citizens

 

No scholar in the universe believes that the constitution is absolutely clear in every respect.
It is, and must be, subject to interpretation and interpretation evolves over centuries.

This is an immutable fact. That it is true, can only mean that was the design.

So, your characterization of 'weasel words' is false, for three reasons.
1. You don't appear to know what the term means, it means words which are vague and incapable of being substantiated such that they cannot lead to coherent thought.
2. Since I can easily demonstrate the veracity of the above, my words are not weasel words, yours are.
3. You didn't start using the term until I started using it.

Your prose clearly flounders. With a modicum of thought you would have
realized that bullshit, by it's very nature, cannot be 'mitigated' and thus the phrase is redundant.

That being said, the characterization, as feeble as the attempt was, is inaccurate.

Your claim is an assumption.

Would mass school shooters have prefered a machine gun if they were easily available?

I'd say the answer is yes.

Would mass school shooters have killed more children, had they been easily available?

I'd say the answer is yes.

Does the regulation of machine guns harass lawful gun owners?

Well, it's like this-- 'harass' is not a proper metric, as the very word is highly charged, emotional.

The proper way to look at this is as follows:

Is the burden of regulation placed on machine guns worth the inconvenience of their acquisition?

If your metric is the saving of children's lives, the saving of lives in general, the answer is yes.

Sure, the affluent and the determined can acquire machine guns.

But, those who are most likely to be mass school shooters or mass shooters in general are rarely affluent and determined.

Therefore, the pool of individuals who are likely to become mass shooters will not have easily access to those weapons, they will select semi automatic, they are cheaper and easily obtained.

With those weapons, they will logically be not as able to kill as many of kids and people as they would have been.

Right wing rubbish. gun deaths in America, per capita, exceed all the western developed nations, so the second amendment has brought us nothing but death. Gun worship is death worship. gun worship is a fools paradise for morons.

Guns for sports and hunting, self defense, that is acceptable. But gun worshipping/promiscuous gun toting is an illness. "In my opinion".

Well, we can summarize the validity of our political differences by comparing who votes for whom.

The right votes for criminals, and the evidence is immutable:




So spare me your right wing nonsense.

From a recent thread:

The NRA was founded in 1871 for the purpose of advancing marksmanship.

NRA president Karl Frederick in 1934, testified before Congress: "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."

He also said:

"I believe in regulatory methods. I think that makes it desirable that any such regulations imposed should not impose undue hardships on the law-abiding citizens and that they should not obstruct him in the right of self-defense, but that they should be directed exclusively, so far as possible, to suppressing the criminal use, or punishing the criminal use of weapons."

I find nothing conflicting in regulation and 'undue burden' but, according so some 2a types on this forum, any regulation is a 'burden' for they want none at all and foolishly believe that the second amendment does not allow it.

That was the original NRA, a club for sports enthusiasts to perfect their shooting skills. largely a club of gentlemen (I believe women were members, too) not the gun worshipping 'fighting tyranny' militia morons like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers many of whom are now serving long prison sentences because they idiotically believed they were 'fighting tyranny' on 1/6, but, in fact, were engaging in sedition.

to which I will add:

the Anti-Federalists were indeed concerned that the new Constitution, specifically the powers it granted to Congress over the militia, could lead to the federal government subsuming state militias into a standing army, or at the very least, undermining the autonomy and power of state militias. This fear was rooted in a broader skepticism of a strong central government, particularly one with a standing army, which they believed could become a tool for tyranny.

The Anti-Federalists were wary of a centralized military power because they saw it as a threat to the sovereignty of the states and the liberties of the people. They argued that a powerful federal military could be used to oppress the states and enforce federal will, essentially eroding the checks and balances that were meant to protect individual and state rights.

In response to these concerns, the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist No. 29 by Alexander Hamilton, sought to reassure that the power given to Congress to regulate the militia was intended to ensure the common defense and general welfare, rather than to establish a domineering federal military force. Hamilton argued that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, would be the best defense against the rise of a standing army that could threaten liberty.

The ratification of the Second Amendment, which states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," was also a response to these concerns.

The debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the role and power of the militia under the Constitution reflects the tension between the need for national defense and the desire to preserve state autonomy and individual liberties.

The wording of the second amendment, evidenced by the concerns of the anti federalist's fear of the constitution's granting congress such new powers of 'calling forth the militia' their fear that congress could permanently subsume state militias for a standing army, which they held in contempt since standing armies were historically used for oppression and tyranny, that congress could usurp state militias, the language of the second amendment was to ASSUAGE the anti-federalists fear.

So, if we look at the language, noting that Hamilton argued that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, would be the best defense against the rise of a standing army that could threaten liberty, we can see that 'shall not be infringed' refers to the 'well regulated militia' which is that which shall not be infringed and 'the right' is a penumbra to it.

That has to be true because that is the wording that was put there get Virginia to sign the ratification resolution to ratify the constitution. See, they had 8 signatures, and they needed one more, that of Virginia's. Virginia was a plantation economy. The militia served three functions, the third one being slave patrols. Without that wording, Patrick Henry, et al. would not have accepted the ratification, for they needed assurance that their 'well regulated militia' WOULD NOT BE INFRINGED. That a well regulated militia cannot function without arms goes hand in hand, it is penumbra to the militia but the point is, the second amendment, as written was NOT about granting all citizens the right to keep and bear arms, it was ONLY about THE MILITIA and 'the people' were all able bodied males between the ages of 18-45.

Heller, is a RECENT decision.

 

when we strip away all the flowery bullshit and verbosity in the faux scholarly attacks you launch on gun ownership, what we see is a cultural loathing of those who value independence and make their own safety a personal duty-an action that is anathema to the collectivist leftist mindset. The second amendment no more brings us "death" than the right to travel or drink brings us death. You constantly complain about lawful users and ignore the fact that all the laws in the world don't prevent crime. Who worships guns? what a bullshit claim. WE cherish freedom and see those who want to ban guns as enemies of freedom and the constitution

Being a KAREN is an illness. trying to slake one's cultural hatred by imposing laws designed to harass a lifestyle that annoys you is an illness

 

this graphically fails because the right is referenced to belonging to the people

 

This proves to any of us who understand the use of firearms that you don't understand how they work.

 

I think most people support that-suppressing CRIMINAL USE and PUNISHING CRIMINAL use of weapons

I see nothing in that which supports BANNING honest people from owning guns, impeding HONEST people from owning guns etc. Did you actually read what you posted?

 

Scholarship does not attack, it exposes, it reveals, it illuminates and enlightens.

Time and time again you have demonstrated a clear lack of depth, knowledge, and scholarship.

Your viewpoints are as simplistic as your words craft strawmen and cartoon thinking.

You belong to the right, and the right supports Trump, and by default, you are wrong.

And by the right, I don't mean traditional conservatism, I mean a new type of right wing thinking that harbors anarchy or something close to it, it began with Reagan, mostly, a new type of neoliberalism.

No group has a simplistic mindset more than this right. this neoliberal right.

They, like you, assume everything we do is under the banner of communism.

What you don't understand is the fallacy of the strawman, and you don't even know you are doing it when you do it.

this is the same trick that McCarthy did in the 50s, and here you are, some 60 something years later, applying the same type of thinking. Have you not learned a damn thing of history?

Your belong to a group that harbors more criminals than any other political party,. by default, you have to be wrong. Trump is wrong, he is a tyranny, or clearly is striving to be one, and anything that supports him is wrong.

Your pontificating about 'freedom' is similar to how tyranny always arrives disguising itself as 'freedom' while hugging the flag.

You think you are on the right side, but how is it that your side has all the criminals?

How is it that your side's philosophy results in more deaths per capita than any other western nation?

Therefore, using the same logic tactics you have hurled against me, then the conclusion leaves me with only one conclusion, you support policies that result in more dead people.

You don't believe in freedom, you believe in tyranny. You think it is freedom, but it's really really not, because unrestricted liberty is anarchy and anarchy is fertile soil for the mushroom of tyranny to emerge out of the muck of anarchy, and out of the muck of anarchy, tyranny always emerges, without fail.

Clearly, there is something wrong with your philosophy if you can't see it, i can't help you.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and part ways.

 

Th second amendment as crafted to assuage the anti federalists fear that the new congress empowered by the new constitution would or might usurp state militias.

they needed Virginia's signature.

Virginia was a plantation economy.

The militia served 3 functions. 1. Defense of state. 2. General policing. 3. Slave patrols.

they needed to be assured that the new congress wouldn't usurp the militia.

This was achieved by the second amendment.

They weren't worried about individuals not owning arms, everyone had them, this was a given, just as everyone had a horse, a buggy, a house, this that and the other, they weren't worried about individualism, as individualism was the staple of the frontier, what they were worried out was the militia. they were worried that the new constitution granted Congress the power to usurp the state militia (the militia clause was counterweighted by the second amendment).

THe second amendment was drafted to assure Virginia, who represented the South, as a whole, the new Congress wouldn't usurp the militia, they were worried about standing armies, which, historically were the avenue of tyranny.

It wasn't the fear of not owning guns, though of course they didn't want that to happen, but above it all, it was the preservation of the militia, this is why the wording says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

it says 'free state'. Not 'country',

That which shall not be infringed is the state militia (and the right of the people to own guns assembled in the militia), the congress shall not compromise or otherwise usurp the state militia, though it might borrow it temporarily.. The second amendment assured that the militia clause wouldn't be used as a permanent usurpation, permanent subsummation.

That's what the second amendment and the militia clause are all about.

Preservation of the militia was the reason for the second amendment, without it, Virginia would not sign the ratification document. they had eight, and 2/3rds would be 9 (2/3rds of the 13 states) and Virginia, right in the middle of the union, signed for the south as the ninth signature.

That 'the people' needed arms is a penumbra right in the context of the militia.

This understanding was uprooted and upended with the Heller decision, which placed the 'individual right' at the center of the second amendment.

Heller is an interpretation, an evolution. It was needed to strike the law that banned handguns in Washington DC. The very thing you tell me you are against. Heller is de facto new law, by the SC,. and conservatives have historically been against this kind or legislating from the bench but, here we are, legislating from the bench. And I know this because Heller is founded on faulty interpretations of history, it gets history wrong (we can get deeper into that, if you want). Heller is recent and decided along party lines, and the subsequent rulings, including Bruen, their weight is derived from Heller. That's a pretty flimsy house to build a school of legal thinking on.

Heller was necessary because without it, the second amendment, being all about the militia, which, as it existed in the late 18th century, no longer exists, which, by that fact, would render the second amendment moot, so Heller adjusted the second amendment to the individual, giving it a new life, a new relevance to the changing times we live in. This proves my point. The Constitution must be subject to some evolution, gentle nudges here and there, short of amendments which are radical changes.

You say it is clear, but that is because you see the world through a right wing lens

Your interpretation does not agree with mine, and I'm also looking at history in a different light, what I see when I read the second amendment is an effort to preserve the militia, which agrees with the historical facts surrounding how it came about. To me it is clear as day and when you tell me you don't want the constitution changed, I see a contradiction where Heller is an evolution and you support heller, but that is not what the second amendment says. THere are quite a number of scholars that share my view. ANd there are those who share your view.

The fact there is debate is the why of Heller.

It proves my point, THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT CLEAR in some parts. IT REQUIRES INTERPRATION, AND THAT IS PROBABLY BY DESIGN, which is contrary to your claim.

that focus did not exist before heller. See, you confuse the fact that people owned arms, historically speaking, means that the second amendment was about the individual right, but that's a confusion. No one ever believed that the government could possibly take away everyone's guns, no more than they could take away horses, cows, or anything else that was the staple of frontier life, the security the state depended more on a well regulated militia than an unregulated mob of individuals with guns. It was the MILITIA they wanted preserved, and for that reason, the second amendment was given so that Virginia would sign.

 

scholarship-OMG that is hilarious . You seem to think that constitutional freedoms are anarchy when EVERY HARMFUL THING SOMEONE CAN DO WITH A FIREARM will subject the user to criminal sentences and or civil damages.

 

It's clear to those who are not trying to find a way to ban guns

 

https://www2.law.ucla.edu/Volokh/freestate.pdf

But if “free State” was understood to mean “free country, free of despotism,” that would tend to support the individual rights view of the Amendment. “[T]he right of the people” would then more easily be read as referring to a right of the people as free individuals, even if a right justified partly by public interests, much as “the right of the people” is understood in the First and Fourth Amendments....
In eighteenth-century political discourse, “free state” was a commonly used political term of art, meaning “free country,” which is to say the opposite of a despotism.

 

I'm not the budding anarchist, you are.

I know that a nation cannot survive without freedom.

But freedom has limits.

A nation cannot survive without proper and rational limits on freedom.

Your failure to understand that fact is the essence of anarchist thinking.

You are an anarchist though you do not understand you are.

The ONLY people who believe in unlimited freedom are anarchists. .

Anarchy is a system that always springs tyrants into action, and they always win when all that is left is a nation with such slender governance it's ineffective.

Anarchists believe the second amendment cannot be regulated.

They are the only people who believe that.

Even if you believe other rights can be limited, but not the second amendment, that is incipient anarchy, anarchy in it's first stage of development.

Once you taste unlimited freedom with one right, you will want it for others.

Either you believe that all rights are subject to reasonable limits, or you don't.

You can't be selective about. ALL rights have reasonable limitations.

You cannot say that only one right cannot have any limitations.

Either all rights are subject to reasonable regulation, or they are not.

Which school of thinking are you in?

All I can conclude thus far, is that you are in the school that all rights are absolute, and they cannot be subject to constraints of any kind.

This would also include the mindset that the constitution is a static/rigid document.

Given that fact, that puts you as an anarchist.

But anarchy is chaos and chaos is the springboard for opportunistic tyrants to take over.

That would be you.

Unless you can convince me otherwise, but, thus far, that's all I'm hearing from your computer.

Now for a lesson in civics:

The U.S. Constitution outlines fundamental rights under the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, but the Supreme Court has consistently held that these rights are not absolute and can be limited under specific circumstances.

The concept of "reasonable constraints" is based on the idea that while the Constitution protects individual freedoms, these freedoms can be restricted to serve compelling state interests or to protect the rights of others. For instance, the First Amendment protects the right to free speech, but courts have allowed for limits on speech that is deemed to incite violence, constitute hate speech, or create a clear and present danger.

Similarly, the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is subject to regulations such as background checks and restrictions on certain types of firearms. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but law enforcement can conduct searches with a warrant or under certain conditions without a warrant.

The determination of what constitutes a "reasonable" constraint often involves a balance between individual rights and the interests of the community or state. This balance is subject to ongoing legal interpretation and judicial review. The Supreme Court uses various tests, such as strict scrutiny for laws affecting fundamental rights, to evaluate whether limitations are justified and constitutionally permissible.

Therefore, while the Constitution grants certain rights, those rights can be and are subject to limitations, as long as such limitations are reasonable, serve a legitimate governmental interest, and are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest without unnecessarily infringing on constitutional rights.

The above is conventional wisdom, and you live outside of it, where anarchy seeks to rear is ugly head. At least, that is what I get from what you have been expressing.

 

Why is it that you feel the need to resort to strawman arguments?

I don't advocate for the banning of all guns, I stated the clearly in my treatise on my advocacy for the repeal of the second amendment, which clearly stated that a new amendment, replacing the second, would include language for the disallowing of states to ban single shot bolt action rifles and non semi automatic handguns, though cities would be allowed to ban handguns of any kind. The repeal, itself, doesn't ban anything, it allows the states to regulate as they see fit, and the states that are hard left with big inner city gun problems could regulate as they see fit (but not willy nilly, they would have to present their case to a board empaneled to review a petition to ban handguns, which is to say, they, like Wash DC, would have to present that they have a serious handgun problem in their city), but no state or region can ban single shot bolt action rifles, that is the minimum that must be allowed for individuals to own. With that repeal, there will be plenty of red states that will have less regulation that exists currently, as the new amendment would replace the FFA, the NfA, etc., etc., etc., with one exception, I would ban machine guns except for military/police/FBI/ATF/NG etc., which, of course,. they could use any weapons they need for their professions. Things like licensing, permits, carry permits, etc., would be subject to regulation as states see fit.

The above is tentative and subject to revision as I acquire greater knowledge on the subject. I would also have a study done to find out the common denominator in western countries whose gun related injuries and death stats are so much better than ours, and see if we should implement their measures.

I would definitely ban posing children with real guns in photographs just as the government bans child pornography. That sh*t has got to stop. It's child abuse. Kiddie gun porn is just as bad as kiddie porn, in my view.

 

I read the article, but the author fails to account for the concerns of the anti federalists fear of the new powers granted by the constitution which could conceivably give the new congress the power to usurp the militia. Whose militia? Virginia's militia, and the militias of the southern states who slave economies depended on the police functionality of their militias.

The author is trying to shift the argument, with clever verbal sleight of hand, to equate 'free state' with 'free country', as 'terms of art', and we can use free country, but the argument fails to grasp that in second amendment's use of 'free state' was to assuage the anti FEDERALISTS, where the term 'country' was too close to federal control of the militia, noting that he admits Madison's choice of country was deliberately replaced with state, and that being true, suggests that they weren't cavalier about these 'terms of art' as your author states, and in so doing, i.e., it doesn't suggest they were thinking 'term of art' at all. In fact it was changed to OPPOSE to absolute federal control, and this idea of 'free country' argument he is making does NOT actually refute it. He tells us what the thinks they were thinking, but he does not, in point of fact, refute my position, and, as per above, he actually proves my position. He states the facts, but in interprets those facts incorrectly, according to his and your agenda, the right wing agenda. I find it amusing that he quoted RAKOVE. Well, Rakove supports my view, not yours, if you have read any of his writings. To wit (from below): By sticking faithfully to the intentions of the founding fathers, future generations are “subordinate to the judgment of present generations to the wisdom of their distant (political) ancestors.” --Jack Rakove

See? Rakove supports the 'constitution is not a static document' position as do I.

Let's get something straight. I, in no way shape or form, advocate interpreting the constitution in promiscuous, willy nilly, agenda driven, fashion. It must be interpreted with the utmost caution, and while I don't believe in the doctrine of the static, frozen in time, legal thinking, we must respect the framers intent, where it can be known, and it cannot always be known, and we must ALSO weigh it to the needs of modernity, which evolve, over time. There is nothing in the constitution which declares the document is unmovable, nor is there any obligation to approach it one way or the other. There are those who believe as you do, and there are those who believe as I do, on both sides of the scholarly realm. it all depends on who is in power, and who chooses the justices of the court, and their wisdom and their respective 'judicial philosophies'. we can only prey they get it right.

That's about it.

 

you don't understand the concept and use a term you are ignorant about

yes, we know that-you seek to limit freedom to punish people whose politics you disagree with. we all believe that some malum per se actions should be restricted

You are wrong and addition to being wrong, a statist or fascist. we should compare our educations in political science and theory. I will note that I was the ranking student in political science at Yale-I earned a 4,0 in the major and in addition, earned the highest grade (of about 100 in the major) on the comprehensive final exam. feel free to edify us as to your scholarly credentials

I have yet to meet one in real life or on this board. You clearly cannot understand the difference between libertarians and anarchists

 

you want to ban almost every current firearm.

 

you want to repeal the second amendment while all the time pretending it doesn't protect individual rights. your argument is internally contradictory