SCOTUS

[PizzaSnake]

All she said, rightly, is that the 2A is about Militias, and that the right to have guns ain't absolute. That's it. And I'd wager that every person here, including you, agrees with her.

Rightly? Oy vey. And I'll take that wager. I'll even give you a trillion billion to one odds.

So now the word militias doesn't appear in the 2nd Amendment? I'll drop down my $1000 on that one, my man. When do I get my money?


I'd wager further that you don't believe the right to bear arms is absolute. Another $1000.

And when you realize that you don't believe it's absolute, you don't get to come back with "your example is ridiculous". There isn't a single person in America who thinks that everyone everywhere, at all times gets a gun because the Constitution said so.

I'm reacting to a VERY specific quote made by someone on twitter, Waffle. You're loading a whole mess of stuff into this one comment.

In short: the twitter guy is implying that had Sotomayor had her way, a Federal Marshall wouldn't have a gun. This is clickbait, and stupid.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And you know this about the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment how? Magic 8-ball? Ouija board?

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

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.

Complete and preposterous gas-lighting bull shirt. STFU troll boy. Post your garbage somewhere else.

Here is what RBG ACTUALLY thought about the 2A you forking moron:

Justice Ginsburg also comments on the past, present and future of the Second Amendment. She cites her dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, and says her "view of the Second Amendment is one based on history."

She continues, "The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia...Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

But, Justice Ginsburg explains, "When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So...the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."

As for the Heller case, decided by the Court in 2008, Justice Ginsburg says, "If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only—and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/ta ... sburg-says

"STFU troll boy" ? Really.

Geez. Tell me what you really think, red faced hockey dad. Let me guess, you were a bully growing up, and you're a bully as a non-grown up chronological adult. Perhaps start taking your meds again? And resuming those anger management classes? Yoga and meditation might help, and herbal tea.

And may I suggest "bull sheet" instead of "bull shirt", and "flucking" instead of "forking". They'll make you sound more erudite.

Back to the matter at hand, and your toxically presented point. Boom, you win. Drop the flucking mic. I really stepped in it! I am embarrassed, chastened, ashamed, humiliated, humbled, and forever schooled on RBG and her views on the 2A as an individual right. I shall never reference her again.

Thankfully, in the jar of a thousand peanuts which comprise my research and beliefs on the 2A, RBG was but one single peanut. And thanks to you, I have removed that peanut forever. I'll stand by the other 999 peanuts of original documents, historical accounts, journalism, jurisprudence (just not Ruth - I surely wont' make that mistake again!), and researchers and debates (both modern and old) which I've utilized to form my opinion.

Be well. And get well. Life's short!

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

All she said, rightly, is that the 2A is about Militias, and that the right to have guns ain't absolute. That's it. And I'd wager that every person here, including you, agrees with her.

Rightly? Oy vey. And I'll take that wager. I'll even give you a trillion billion to one odds.

So now the word militias doesn't appear in the 2nd Amendment? I'll drop down my $1000 on that one, my man. When do I get my money?


I'd wager further that you don't believe the right to bear arms is absolute. Another $1000.

And when you realize that you don't believe it's absolute, you don't get to come back with "your example is ridiculous". There isn't a single person in America who thinks that everyone everywhere, at all times gets a gun because the Constitution said so.

I'm reacting to a VERY specific quote made by someone on twitter, Waffle. You're loading a whole mess of stuff into this one comment.

In short: the twitter guy is implying that had Sotomayor had her way, a Federal Marshall wouldn't have a gun. This is clickbait, and stupid.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And you know this about the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment how? Magic 8-ball? Ouija board?

Pic shows a few of the books which have helped formulate my understanding on the issue. Intent of the framers isn't an abstract concept, because the ink on parchment is in national and state archives and libraries throughout the land. Serious scholars have been making that material available for anyone interested in conducting their own investigation, in order to draw their own conclusions. I'm comfortable with my understanding of the framer's intent, based on having read the framer's words, and the interpretations of scholars (both sides of the issue) of those words.

I gotta say, though, Ouija and Magic 8-Ball investigations are a heck of an idea. Fond memories of freaking out my much younger sister and her friends with Ouija board shenanigans! Ah, the good old days!

[Kismet]

There is likely as much scholarship advocating different interpretations that are also as compelling to others as theses are to you

I prefer the grammatical theory myself

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/th ... -amendment

https://daily.jstor.org/revisiting-mess ... amendment/

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

There is likely as much scholarship advocating different interpretations that are also as compelling to others as theses are to you

I prefer the grammatical theory myself

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/th ... -amendment

https://daily.jstor.org/revisiting-mess ... amendment/

Have read both of those. There are others, too. Much of this newer scholarship can be traced to an interesting non-profit grant gifting foundation established in 1948: The Joyce Foundation.

The foundation has had a heavy focus ($50mm) since the 1990's on gun control, with a special twist: "The foundation financed scholarships for law schools to promote a legal theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to bear arms, claiming the amendment guaranteed a state government’s right to arm an organized militia. The law review article arguments were cited in federal court rulings in 2001 and 2002 that upheld state and local gun control laws. The organization also paid for a book titled Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.

In the process, the foundation bankrolled the Second Amendment Research Center at Ohio State University for the purpose of producing research to back up the Second Amendment as a collective rather than individual right.

Give me some of that cash, and I'll find a collectivist angle, too! Gotta love policy based evidence making with a legal and law school twist!

There are of course two sides of the grammatical coin. One of the deepest dives was a linguistic PHD student from iirc Australia who went so deep down the rabbit hole of 2A grammar that she needed oxygen. Her takeaway was three distinct possibilities, with my recollection being (don't quote me or tase me, bro!): 20% collective interpretation. 50% coin toss on collective or individual. And 30% individual. One of those intriguing reads. I can't remember if it was in conjunction with a doctoral thesis, and if I can dig it out I'll share here.

Grammar aside, my hypothetical suggestion a few posts up about "if the founding fathers could see us today so profoundly gummed up regarding the prefatory clause's use of militia and well-regulated vis-a-vis 2A individual versus collective interpretation, I firmly believe they'd (in my opinion only, don't tase me bro!) eliminate it. Why? The plethora of written material which chronicles innate and god given rights, including RKBA, for individuals which predated the United States (via English and individual states governance papers), and were integral to the back and forth arguments during the pregnancy, and finally delivery, of the Constitution. For me, the buck starts there, and between then and 1968 there is a massive amount of writings, jurisprudence, SCOTUS cases, historical accounts, and news stories which overwhelmingly, for me at least, confirm Individual Right for the win. 1968 to now, we've had a cage fight, and my original interpretation remains unchanged. The majority here obviously don't feel that way, and fair enough.

I'll reiterate my endorsement of David Yamane's "Gun Curious - A Liberal Professor's Surprising Journey Inside America's Gun Culture", out for a month or two now, is a refreshing quick read that seeks to, as he espouses, create light, not (toxic) heat.

[MDlaxfan76]

If I understand correctly, what is being posited is the various framers, had they known there would be confusion about their words, specifically the initial clause, would have all chosen different words to make absolutely clear that their intent was to provide a total and absolute individual right to have and use any weapon anytime they wished to do so. No government authority to regulate.

So..."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."

would have instead been written as: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

or, better yet: "The absolute and total right of individuals to keep and bear any and all Arms, shall not be infringed by Government in any way."

Really?

ALL the framers would agree with such a position?

And the notion is that "had they known there would be confusion" suggests that interpretation of their (ALL of them) intent presupposes a retrospective view, with current times knowledge and perspective. Which would therefore need to include current times' knowledge of the technology of "arms" today.

And we really think that the "people" = "individuals" in the context of ANY weapon would be the view of ALL the framers? All individuals? Any weapon? Anytime, anywhere?

And they really didn't mean "well regulated" or "Militia", or even "necessary to the security of a free State" ???

Or have I misunderstood this position?

Again, I'm a gun owner, hunter for more than 60 years; 7 shotguns just packed up for storage as we moved out of our home last week. I don't have any issue with the plentiful regulations about when and where and how I utilize these weapons. I appreciate that my "individual" ownership and usage is a privilege that demands respect for the safety of others.

[cradleandshoot]

If I understand correctly, what is being posited is the various framers, had they known there would be confusion about their words, specifically the initial clause, would have all chosen different words to make absolutely clear that their intent was to provide a total and absolute individual right to have and use any weapon anytime they wished to do so. No government authority to regulate.

So..."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."

would have instead been written as: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

or, better yet: "The absolute and total right of individuals to keep and bear any and all Arms, shall not be infringed by Government in any way."

Really?

ALL the framers would agree with such a position?

And the notion is that "had they known there would be confusion" suggests that interpretation of their (ALL of them) intent presupposes a retrospective view, with current times knowledge and perspective. Which would therefore need to include current times' knowledge of the technology of "arms" today.

And we really think that the "people" = "individuals" in the context of ANY weapon would be the view of ALL the framers? All individuals? Any weapon? Anytime, anywhere?

And they really didn't mean "well regulated" or "Militia", or even "necessary to the security of a free State" ???

Or have I misunderstood this position?

Again, I'm a gun owner, hunter for more than 60 years; 7 shotguns just packed up for storage as we moved out of our home last week. I don't have any issue with the plentiful regulations about when and where and how I utilize these weapons. I appreciate that my "individual" ownership and usage is a privilege that demands respect for the safety of others.

In NYS when you purchase any weapon legally you must do so with a dealer who has a FFL. When I purchased my 410 it was shipped to a dealer. When I picked it up he did an FBI background check which took 10 minutes tops. In NYS if you want to purchase a handgun there are many more hoops to jump through especially if your permit is for concealed carry. The process can take as long as one year on average.

I understand this is the way it is done in NYS. I don't think you can get anymore well regulated than that? Of course if you know someone this process can easily be bypassed but that is an entirely different conversation.

[MDlaxfan76]

If I understand correctly, what is being posited is the various framers, had they known there would be confusion about their words, specifically the initial clause, would have all chosen different words to make absolutely clear that their intent was to provide a total and absolute individual right to have and use any weapon anytime they wished to do so. No government authority to regulate.

So..."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."

would have instead been written as: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

or, better yet: "The absolute and total right of individuals to keep and bear any and all Arms, shall not be infringed by Government in any way."

Really?

ALL the framers would agree with such a position?

And the notion is that "had they known there would be confusion" suggests that interpretation of their (ALL of them) intent presupposes a retrospective view, with current times knowledge and perspective. Which would therefore need to include current times' knowledge of the technology of "arms" today.

And we really think that the "people" = "individuals" in the context of ANY weapon would be the view of ALL the framers? All individuals? Any weapon? Anytime, anywhere?

And they really didn't mean "well regulated" or "Militia", or even "necessary to the security of a free State" ???

Or have I misunderstood this position?

Again, I'm a gun owner, hunter for more than 60 years; 7 shotguns just packed up for storage as we moved out of our home last week. I don't have any issue with the plentiful regulations about when and where and how I utilize these weapons. I appreciate that my "individual" ownership and usage is a privilege that demands respect for the safety of others.

In NYS when you purchase any weapon legally you must do so with a dealer who has a FFL. When I purchased my 410 it was shipped to a dealer. When I picked it up he did an FBI background check which took 10 minutes tops. In NYS if you want to purchase a handgun there are many more hoops to jump through especially if your permit is for concealed carry. The process can take as long as one year on average.

I understand this is the way it is done in NYS. I don't think you can get anymore well regulated than that? Of course if you know someone this process can easily be bypassed but that is an entirely different conversation.

I'm fine with NYS regulating the way you say they do.
I'm also totally fine with coming down hard on traffickers and users of illegally sold weapons.

My post was in reference to a posture being advocated by another poster who posits as I described. That makes no sense to me.

[njbill]

To say the second amendment does not protect individual gun ownership is not to say that individual gun ownership should be outlawed. It simply means that the legislatures (Congress or state) have the right and authority to regulate gun ownership. If Texas wants to have a law that says a citizen must prove they own 10 guns before they are eligible to get a drivers license, that’s fine for them. If New Jersey wants to outlaw all guns, that’s fine for them. If Congress wants to ban assault rifles and impose other types of regulation, that’s fine too.

[cradleandshoot]

If I understand correctly, what is being posited is the various framers, had they known there would be confusion about their words, specifically the initial clause, would have all chosen different words to make absolutely clear that their intent was to provide a total and absolute individual right to have and use any weapon anytime they wished to do so. No government authority to regulate.

So..."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."

would have instead been written as: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

or, better yet: "The absolute and total right of individuals to keep and bear any and all Arms, shall not be infringed by Government in any way."

Really?

ALL the framers would agree with such a position?

And the notion is that "had they known there would be confusion" suggests that interpretation of their (ALL of them) intent presupposes a retrospective view, with current times knowledge and perspective. Which would therefore need to include current times' knowledge of the technology of "arms" today.

And we really think that the "people" = "individuals" in the context of ANY weapon would be the view of ALL the framers? All individuals? Any weapon? Anytime, anywhere?

And they really didn't mean "well regulated" or "Militia", or even "necessary to the security of a free State" ???

Or have I misunderstood this position?

Again, I'm a gun owner, hunter for more than 60 years; 7 shotguns just packed up for storage as we moved out of our home last week. I don't have any issue with the plentiful regulations about when and where and how I utilize these weapons. I appreciate that my "individual" ownership and usage is a privilege that demands respect for the safety of others.

In NYS when you purchase any weapon legally you must do so with a dealer who has a FFL. When I purchased my 410 it was shipped to a dealer. When I picked it up he did an FBI background check which took 10 minutes tops. In NYS if you want to purchase a handgun there are many more hoops to jump through especially if your permit is for concealed carry. The process can take as long as one year on average.

I understand this is the way it is done in NYS. I don't think you can get anymore well regulated than that? Of course if you know someone this process can easily be bypassed but that is an entirely different conversation.

I'm fine with NYS regulating the way you say they do.
I'm also totally fine with coming down hard on traffickers and users of illegally sold weapons.

My post was in reference to a posture being advocated by another poster who posits as I described. That makes no sense to me.

I believe your advocating some sort of consensus from both sides about how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted. We both know that is never going to happen. The only realistic or unrealistic option would be for Washington to revisit and redefine the 2nd amendment. I don't believe the powers that be in Washington would ever touch that issue with a 10 foot pole.

[cradleandshoot]

To say the second amendment does not protect individual gun ownership is not to say that individual gun ownership should be outlawed. It simply means that the legislatures (Congress or state) have the right and authority to regulate gun ownership. If Texas wants to have a law that says a citizen must prove they own 10 guns before they are eligible to get a drivers license, that’s fine for them. If New Jersey wants to outlaw all guns, that’s fine for them. If Congress wants to ban assault rifles and impose other types of regulation, that’s fine too.

It becomes hard to put the genie back in the bottle counselor. I believe there are well over 300 million semi automatic AR-15 style weapons already in the possession of private owners. Any state can pass laws banning them. The rub is would it be possible to enforce such a ban? IMO I don't think it is and would open up another can of worms when it came down to enforcement of any ban.

[PizzaSnake]

All she said, rightly, is that the 2A is about Militias, and that the right to have guns ain't absolute. That's it. And I'd wager that every person here, including you, agrees with her.

Rightly? Oy vey. And I'll take that wager. I'll even give you a trillion billion to one odds.

So now the word militias doesn't appear in the 2nd Amendment? I'll drop down my $1000 on that one, my man. When do I get my money?


I'd wager further that you don't believe the right to bear arms is absolute. Another $1000.

And when you realize that you don't believe it's absolute, you don't get to come back with "your example is ridiculous". There isn't a single person in America who thinks that everyone everywhere, at all times gets a gun because the Constitution said so.

I'm reacting to a VERY specific quote made by someone on twitter, Waffle. You're loading a whole mess of stuff into this one comment.

In short: the twitter guy is implying that had Sotomayor had her way, a Federal Marshall wouldn't have a gun. This is clickbait, and stupid.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And you know this about the intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment how? Magic 8-ball? Ouija board?

Pic shows a few of the books which have helped formulate my understanding on the issue. Intent of the framers isn't an abstract concept, because the ink on parchment is in national and state archives and libraries throughout the land. Serious scholars have been making that material available for anyone interested in conducting their own investigation, in order to draw their own conclusions. I'm comfortable with my understanding of the framer's intent, based on having read the framer's words, and the interpretations of scholars (both sides of the issue) of those words.

I gotta say, though, Ouija and Magic 8-Ball investigations are a heck of an idea. Fond memories of freaking out my much younger sister and her friends with Ouija board shenanigans! Ah, the good old days!

Read Bailyn’s “Ideological Origins of the American Revolution”?

[ggait]

All you have to do is read the Breyer and Stephen’s dissents in Heller. They totally school Scalia on the history.

Many state constitution declarations of rights specifically say that the right to bear arms is for hunting, defense of self, defense of the State, militias and other purposes.

Any originalist or strict constructionist would say the omissions of those in the 2A are intentional and meaningful.

Funny how Scalia goes all expansive activist when the issue is guns. Total bs.

[cradleandshoot]

All you have to do is read the Breyer and Stephen’s dissents in Heller. They totally school Scalia on the history.

Many state constitution declarations of rights specifically say that the right to bear arms is for hunting, defense of self, defense of the State, militias and other purposes.

Any originalist or strict constructionist would say the omissions of those in the 2A are intentional and meaningful.

Funny how Scalia goes all expansive activist when the issue is guns. Total bs.

As well as many state constitutions have few restrictions on fire arms. So which state is correct or is it a different philosophy about how the citizens of different states that is reflected on how different states address the issue?

[njbill]

To say the second amendment does not protect individual gun ownership is not to say that individual gun ownership should be outlawed. It simply means that the legislatures (Congress or state) have the right and authority to regulate gun ownership. If Texas wants to have a law that says a citizen must prove they own 10 guns before they are eligible to get a drivers license, that’s fine for them. If New Jersey wants to outlaw all guns, that’s fine for them. If Congress wants to ban assault rifles and impose other types of regulation, that’s fine too.

It becomes hard to put the genie back in the bottle counselor. I believe there are well over 300 million semi automatic AR-15 style weapons already in the possession of private owners. Any state can pass laws banning them. The rub is would it be possible to enforce such a ban? IMO I don't think it is and would open up another can of worms when it came down to enforcement of any ban.

Just need a little genie grease.

[Kismet]

There is likely as much scholarship advocating different interpretations that are also as compelling to others as theses are to you

I prefer the grammatical theory myself

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/th ... -amendment

https://daily.jstor.org/revisiting-mess ... amendment/

Have read both of those. There are others, too. Much of this newer scholarship can be traced to an interesting non-profit grant gifting foundation established in 1948: The Joyce Foundation.

The foundation has had a heavy focus ($50mm) since the 1990's on gun control, with a special twist: "The foundation financed scholarships for law schools to promote a legal theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to bear arms, claiming the amendment guaranteed a state government’s right to arm an organized militia. The law review article arguments were cited in federal court rulings in 2001 and 2002 that upheld state and local gun control laws. The organization also paid for a book titled Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.

In the process, the foundation bankrolled the Second Amendment Research Center at Ohio State University for the purpose of producing research to back up the Second Amendment as a collective rather than individual right.

Give me some of that cash, and I'll find a collectivist angle, too! Gotta love policy based evidence making with a legal and law school twist!

There are of course two sides of the grammatical coin. One of the deepest dives was a linguistic PHD student from iirc Australia who went so deep down the rabbit hole of 2A grammar that she needed oxygen. Her takeaway was three distinct possibilities, with my recollection being (don't quote me or tase me, bro!): 20% collective interpretation. 50% coin toss on collective or individual. And 30% individual. One of those intriguing reads. I can't remember if it was in conjunction with a doctoral thesis, and if I can dig it out I'll share here.

Grammar aside, my hypothetical suggestion a few posts up about "if the founding fathers could see us today so profoundly gummed up regarding the prefatory clause's use of militia and well-regulated vis-a-vis 2A individual versus collective interpretation, I firmly believe they'd (in my opinion only, don't tase me bro!) eliminate it. Why? The plethora of written material which chronicles innate and god given rights, including RKBA, for individuals which predated the United States (via English and individual states governance papers), and were integral to the back and forth arguments during the pregnancy, and finally delivery, of the Constitution. For me, the buck starts there, and between then and 1968 there is a massive amount of writings, jurisprudence, SCOTUS cases, historical accounts, and news stories which overwhelmingly, for me at least, confirm Individual Right for the win. 1968 to now, we've had a cage fight, and my original interpretation remains unchanged. The majority here obviously don't feel that way, and fair enough.

I'll reiterate my endorsement of David Yamane's "Gun Curious - A Liberal Professor's Surprising Journey Inside America's Gun Culture", out for a month or two now, is a refreshing quick read that seeks to, as he espouses, create light, not (toxic) heat.

Last time I checked the Bill Of Rights was passed in 1791. Perhaps you can explain why this discussion about the 2nd being interpreted as an individual right to bear arms did not occur until the late 20th Century - almost 200 years after it was enacted.

What changed? Certainly not the text or the original meaning?

[a fan]

The plethora of written material which chronicles innate and god given rights, including RKBA, for individuals which predated the United States (via English and individual states governance papers), and were integral to the back and forth arguments during the pregnancy, and finally delivery, of the Constitution. For me, the buck starts there, and between then and 1968 there is a massive amount of writings, jurisprudence, SCOTUS cases, historical accounts, and news stories which overwhelmingly, for me at least, confirm Individual Right for the win. 1968 to now, we've had a cage fight, and my original interpretation remains unchanged. The majority here obviously don't feel that way, and fair enough.

You've lost the argument. You can't ignore words in the Constitution, and replace them with " massive amount of writings, jurisprudence, SCOTUS cases, historical accounts" as you put it.

The 2A is about militias and guns. Period.

That said, you and your hardcore gun advocates don't seem to understand that even though your right to a gun isn't guaranteed by the Constitution? That doesn't mean that you DON'T have rights to own guns. It's just not spelled out in the Constitution, like so many other Rights we have as Americans.

Hope you didn't miss what NJBill posted.......

To say the second amendment does not protect individual gun ownership is not to say that individual gun ownership should be outlawed. It simply means that the legislatures (Congress or state) have the right and authority to regulate gun ownership

Waffle...you yourself agree that gun ownership should be regulated. So given that, you're all set. Your side has won, and it's not even a close call.

More guns that humans in the US. What else do you need? And yes, I support you.

[MDlaxfan76]

If I understand correctly, what is being posited is the various framers, had they known there would be confusion about their words, specifically the initial clause, would have all chosen different words to make absolutely clear that their intent was to provide a total and absolute individual right to have and use any weapon anytime they wished to do so. No government authority to regulate.

So..."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."

would have instead been written as: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

or, better yet: "The absolute and total right of individuals to keep and bear any and all Arms, shall not be infringed by Government in any way."

Really?

ALL the framers would agree with such a position?

And the notion is that "had they known there would be confusion" suggests that interpretation of their (ALL of them) intent presupposes a retrospective view, with current times knowledge and perspective. Which would therefore need to include current times' knowledge of the technology of "arms" today.

And we really think that the "people" = "individuals" in the context of ANY weapon would be the view of ALL the framers? All individuals? Any weapon? Anytime, anywhere?

And they really didn't mean "well regulated" or "Militia", or even "necessary to the security of a free State" ???

Or have I misunderstood this position?

Again, I'm a gun owner, hunter for more than 60 years; 7 shotguns just packed up for storage as we moved out of our home last week. I don't have any issue with the plentiful regulations about when and where and how I utilize these weapons. I appreciate that my "individual" ownership and usage is a privilege that demands respect for the safety of others.

In NYS when you purchase any weapon legally you must do so with a dealer who has a FFL. When I purchased my 410 it was shipped to a dealer. When I picked it up he did an FBI background check which took 10 minutes tops. In NYS if you want to purchase a handgun there are many more hoops to jump through especially if your permit is for concealed carry. The process can take as long as one year on average.

I understand this is the way it is done in NYS. I don't think you can get anymore well regulated than that? Of course if you know someone this process can easily be bypassed but that is an entirely different conversation.

I'm fine with NYS regulating the way you say they do.
I'm also totally fine with coming down hard on traffickers and users of illegally sold weapons.

My post was in reference to a posture being advocated by another poster who posits as I described. That makes no sense to me.

I believe your advocating some sort of consensus from both sides about how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted. We both know that is never going to happen. The only realistic or unrealistic option would be for Washington to revisit and redefine the 2nd amendment. I don't believe the powers that be in Washington would ever touch that issue with a 10 foot pole.

No, I'm simply rejecting the notion that there's an absolute and unregulated right to individual ownership and use of any weapon, anytime, anywhere.

We can let democracy sort out how much regulation is appropriate in various circumstances and times, but this interpretation of absolutist rights is nonsensical to me and simply not justified by the language or two centuries of precedent.

[MDlaxfan76]

All you have to do is read the Breyer and Stephen’s dissents in Heller. They totally school Scalia on the history.

Many state constitution declarations of rights specifically say that the right to bear arms is for hunting, defense of self, defense of the State, militias and other purposes.

Any originalist or strict constructionist would say the omissions of those in the 2A are intentional and meaningful.

Funny how Scalia goes all expansive activist when the issue is guns. Total bs.

As well as many state constitutions have few restrictions on fire arms. So which state is correct or is it a different philosophy about how the citizens of different states that is reflected on how different states address the issue?

That's our form of democracy cradle.
Messy and different by jurisdiction.

We can argue til the cows come home about "correct" but that's going to change with the times and with voters' care.

[cradleandshoot]

All you have to do is read the Breyer and Stephen’s dissents in Heller. They totally school Scalia on the history.

Many state constitution declarations of rights specifically say that the right to bear arms is for hunting, defense of self, defense of the State, militias and other purposes.

Any originalist or strict constructionist would say the omissions of those in the 2A are intentional and meaningful.

Funny how Scalia goes all expansive activist when the issue is guns. Total bs.

As well as many state constitutions have few restrictions on fire arms. So which state is correct or is it a different philosophy about how the citizens of different states that is reflected on how different states address the issue?

That's our form of democracy cradle.
Messy and different by jurisdiction.

We can argue til the cows come home about "correct" but that's going to change with the times and with voters' care.

And that form of democracy has worked darn well for around 250 years. They did bake into the cake to correct where they went wrong by allowing the constitution to be amended. We both know how easy that is to do.