a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 1:03 pm
WaffleTwineFaceoff wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:27 pm
The 2A isn't about militias in terms of the crucial clauses: the operative and restrictive ones. The prefatory clause which introduces the word militia has nothing to do with the amendment's purpose: to enshrine the right of individuals (the people) to keep and bear arms. If the founding father's are looking down or up or whatever right now they would put their heads together and delete the militia/prefatory clause completely because of the confusion it has caused (don't get me going on "well regulated" meaning), and the weaponization against the 2A as an individual right it has provided activist scholars and judges and a public easily misled by politicians and lobbyists playing a semantic shell game.
So the word militia doesn't count because you say so?
Yep, it's added confustion, no question.
WaffleTwineFaceoff wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 10:12 am
The right to bear arms I do believe is absolute in the sense we all have an absolute right to protect our selves, and our loved ones. Those that don't feel that way are either criminals, or individuals who feel they have a right to infringe on my rights despite my peaceful, law-abiding behavior.
So you're good if every kid K-12 takes a gun to school?
Or how about someone on trial for murder that has not yet been convicted...sitting in the courtroom?
Or how about planes? Every passenger gets one, right?
Or someone on a White House tours can open carry, right? (actually...maybe that's not a good example
) (kidding, of course)
Or how about serial numbers? Guns should be untraceable, right?
No forms, no fees. No licenses. All of that goes away if it's
Yeah, you don't. So no, it's not absolute, sorry. Now where's my money?
WaffleTwineFaceoff wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 10:12 am
The other bits in my post were from other posters as the responses to the original post came in. Didn't mean to conflate their thoughts onto your plate. And I took the twitter post and quote from her Macdonald dissent concurrence to suggest that with the "militia only" collective reading of the 2A then citizens would be helpless against criminals. I didn't make the leap that law enforcement agencies of government would be disarmed by a militia reading of the 2A in that post.
Correct. You're conflating and we're simply talking past each other.
I'm good with guns, and have told you as much before. Owned one myself. If someone offered me a day a gun range, or to go shoot trap? I'm in.
And I have no interest in taking an American's right to protect their family (with reasonable restrictions), or what I consider to be a right to hunt (with reasonably restrictions, of course).
And neither does Sotomayor...which is why I'm making fun of that Tweet.
WaffleTwineFaceoff wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 10:12 am
I will bitcoin pay you nothing and you will like it!
Off to shop for warships. Will await your rebuttal of my rebuttal's rebuttal so I can rebut. That's how this place works.
All in good fun.
Talking past each other is, from what I can tell, a time honored tradition here!
My train of thought or analogies I am well aware sometimes get lost in translation.
Nothing is because I say so. Using the prefatory clause train of thought hypothetical above was an obviously feeble and pathetically attempt to make a point. I said what I said because of how often "militia" and "well regulated" are deployed "disingenuously with purpose" by politicians, lobbying organizations, "researchers" (paid shills), professors (guess who gets published and tenure?), and the media industrial complex. The goal? get low information, easily led, emotionally charged "reasoners", and hive minded hordes whipped up and weaponized to achieve "we need to do something and we're right" performative policy theater regarding the difficult issues that face our society.
The whole gun rights/gun grabbing/gun violence "dialogue" and diametrically opposed and entrenched solution options are just one example of the divide, demoralize, blame, and "do something" mindset which both sides of our political leadership have fine tuned into a art form designed to entrench the electorate, hoover in special interest dollars, and assure reelection. Or something like that. Both sides to blame, while real progress and potential solutions gather dust.
Anyone with 44 minutes who wants to experience a drop the mic explication of 2A and militia's and well regulated and Ruth Bader Ginsberg affirming individual right interpretation feel free. And, no, my research on 2A matters is not from this video. The source documents, jurisprudence, news articles, etc. from before founding to present are my wheel house. It's a good primer that a diphat like smug John Stewart, who poses as a gun subject matter expert, should sit down, having shut up, and watch. And I used to like the guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kXPvkH ... BhupZTCmUn
In the gun/2A slice of this dumpster fire mired in quicksand that is American society today, there are examples aplenty to illustrate the point above I endeavored to make. A deep rabbit hole visit on the AR-15 as "partisan political chew toy" (not my words) is perfect example. Facts about the number of rifles utilized in criminal murder perpetrated by guns (and criminal murder by all means) shows AR fixation is a "do something Macguffin" pointing us away from solutions which could really make a difference, especially in mass pubic shootings. The most recent FBI report just out a month ago confirms handguns - not "assault weapons" (which the director of ATF couldn't even define in front of Congress) as the majority firearm utilized in such criminal acts. Do facts matter when seeking solutions?
https://x.com/KateSchweit/status/1805247737052512501
For those of us passionate about firearm rights, safety, education, responsibilities, and the scourge of criminal violence (firearm or not), it is both disheartening and angering to see energy and resources pointed with divisiveness and political capital as the goals of our leaders.
Anyways, lots of questions you pose to me above about schools, planes, and white houses I don't quite comprehend in terms of the core issues regarding a Right. We can both go back and forth with semantic sophistry and syntax slyness, "proving" we're right, but there's no way we aren't too important to have unlimited time for such parlor games.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_ ... d_Thinking
I hope, as gummed up as these arguments get on here, that most of us are law abiding folks with decent minds, hearts, and intent, despite differences. Living in this age of bunkered, divided, corrosive and toxic helplessness is killing the spirit of the younger generation. Just like leaders on both sides, and globally, seem to want.
Food for thought. Chilling.
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speech ... arvard.htm
And to turn this back to the thread and original Sotomayor post, no I don't trust her regarding individualist reading of 2A rights. Not even one little bit. Call it a gut feeling.
Be well.