SCOTUS

[PizzaSnake]

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.

Whole different Era…

[lagerhead]

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.

Bill nj can’t “outlaw” all guns, you know this.

[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.

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.

Ain't easy but if the gun nuts want absolute rights, come with an amendment.

[lagerhead]

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.

Ain't easy but if the gun nuts want absolute rights, come with an amendment.

The same can be said for those who want to restrict them.

[a fan]

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.

Ain't easy but if the gun nuts want absolute rights, come with an amendment.

The same can be said for those who want to restrict them.

That's everyone. Everyone wants SOME restrictions, even the biggest Gun Advocate wants restrictions.

The only question is: where's the line. And boy, you have to be waaaaaaay out on the fringe to think the gun advocates haven't won that battle.

[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.

Ain't easy but if the gun nuts want absolute rights, come with an amendment.

That would be the solution but that could also lead to a discussion the true gun nuts probably don't want to have.

[lagerhead]

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.

Ain't easy but if the gun nuts want absolute rights, come with an amendment.

The same can be said for those who want to restrict them.

That's everyone. Everyone wants SOME restrictions, even the biggest Gun Advocate wants restrictions.

The only question is: where's the line. And boy, you have to be waaaaaaay out on the fringe to think the gun advocates haven't won that battle.

You say “everyone”, and I agree with you there. There isn’t even a dialogue. There should be more money behind “everyone” than the NRA so……… still waiting.

[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.

Bill nj can’t “outlaw” all guns, you know this.

Yes, under current law, I know that. My point is that Heller was wrongly decided. Gun rights issues should be decided by the states. If Heller were reversed, and if there is no relevant provision in the New Jersey state Constitution (don’t know if there is), and if there is no federal law granting gun rights (not aware that there is), then, yes, New Jersey could outlaw all guns.

[a fan]

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.

Ain't easy but if the gun nuts want absolute rights, come with an amendment.

The same can be said for those who want to restrict them.

That's everyone. Everyone wants SOME restrictions, even the biggest Gun Advocate wants restrictions.

The only question is: where's the line. And boy, you have to be waaaaaaay out on the fringe to think the gun advocates haven't won that battle.

You say “everyone”, and I agree with you there. There isn’t even a dialogue. There should be more money behind “everyone” than the NRA so……… still waiting.

And you and I will keep waiting. Reducing gun violence is right up there with fixing immigration.....neither party wants to give up their wedge issue.....so they do nothing.

Easy first fix? Go back to the days when we spent significant money on Mental Health, and beds and treatment for those who need it. Reagan ripped all that apart, and kickstarted the homelessness crisis. Mental Health spending would knock out a whole MESS of shootings in America, and help to clean up our streets from homeless folks who are simply just.....in need of mental health care.

Won't happen in my lifetime, that much is clear.

[lagerhead]

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.

Bill nj can’t “outlaw” all guns, you know this.

Yes, under current law, I know that. My point is that Heller was wrongly decided. Gun rights issues should be decided by the states. If Heller were reversed, and if there is no relevant provision in the New Jersey state Constitution (don’t know if there is), and if there is no federal law granting gun rights (not aware that there is), then, yes, New Jersey could outlaw all guns.

NJ Constitution does not have a right to bear arms, took care of one of your ifs. NJ is one of the hardest states to legally purchase a gun.

[youthathletics]

Easy first fix? Go back to the days when we spent significant money on Mental Health, and beds and treatment for those who need it. Reagan ripped all that apart, and kickstarted the homelessness crisis. Mental Health spending would knock out a whole MESS of shootings in America, and help to clean up our streets from homeless folks who are simply just.....in need of mental health care.

Won't happen in my lifetime, that much is clear.

What in our Constitution / 2A addresses mental health?

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

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.

Respectfully disagree as the words in the Constitution are very clear. Very spelled out. The right to keep and bear arms by individuals is there, in black and white. Before and during the creation of the words now enshrined is a great deal of written material - the actual words of the framers - which made it patently clear of the individual right (the operative and restrictive clauses), and the prefatory clause confirms that individual right via the militia's (being the whole of the people) purpose, and the militia's preparedness (well regulation) as integral. We must be reading different source material. And we'll be circling in a cross purpose forever loop, so when your rebuttals to this paragraph come in I preemptively thank you, respect you, and will refrain from reengaging.

None of this is about want, or need, or privileges. Or hardcore or extreme anything. With how many Americans owning how many guns, isn't it odd how little violence committed with firearms there actually is, statistically? Seems like there are a ton of law abiding, peaceful, non-violent people, like 99.99% of gun owners, who are not contributing to the societal ills surrounding firearms. And the horrific corners and pockets of behaviors that are occurring, as I've said going back to the Gun thread, which are granular and need granular solutions, are lost in the crude, broad, blunt instruments and interests that frame America's "gun debate cage fight" which is doing a disservice to us all, the victims foremost.

[Kismet]

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.

Respectfully disagree as the words in the Constitution are very clear. Very spelled out. The right to keep and bear arms by individuals is there, in black and white. Before and during the creation of the words now enshrined is a great deal of written material - the actual words of the framers - which made it patently clear of the individual right (the operative and restrictive clauses), and the prefatory clause confirms that individual right via the militia's (being the whole of the people) purpose, and the militia's preparedness (well regulation) as integral. We must be reading different source material. And we'll be circling in a cross purpose forever loop, so when your rebuttals to this paragraph come in I preemptively thank you, respect you, and will refrain from reengaging.

None of this is about want, or need, or privileges. Or hardcore or extreme anything. With how many Americans owning how many guns, isn't it odd how little violence committed with firearms there actually is, statistically? Seems like there are a ton of law abiding, peaceful, non-violent people, like 99.99% of gun owners, who are not contributing to the societal ills surrounding firearms. And the horrific corners and pockets of behaviors that are occurring, as I've said going back to the Gun thread, which are granular and need granular solutions, are lost in the crude, broad, blunt instruments and interests that frame America's "gun debate cage fight" which is doing a disservice to us all, the victims foremost.

You forget the first clause which references militias.

[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.

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?

Nothing has changed. And discussion HAS occurred well before the late 20th century good sir. The occurrence of 2A referenced as an individual right was first discussed in a 1790's case. Multiple times in the 1800's in jurisprudence, as well as newspapers, editorials, etc. throughout the 19th century. The "individual vs. collective" ramp up that has occurred - with partisan and purposeful intent - is easily discerned when assessing the goals of foundations such as the Joyce Foundation - which I am guessing is a new name for most here.

Text and meaning unchanged. Before Bill of Rights was ratified meaning was crystal clear. Founding documents say so, not me.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

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.

Respectfully disagree as the words in the Constitution are very clear. Very spelled out. The right to keep and bear arms by individuals is there, in black and white. Before and during the creation of the words now enshrined is a great deal of written material - the actual words of the framers - which made it patently clear of the individual right (the operative and restrictive clauses), and the prefatory clause confirms that individual right via the militia's (being the whole of the people) purpose, and the militia's preparedness (well regulation) as integral. We must be reading different source material. And we'll be circling in a cross purpose forever loop, so when your rebuttals to this paragraph come in I preemptively thank you, respect you, and will refrain from reengaging.

None of this is about want, or need, or privileges. Or hardcore or extreme anything. With how many Americans owning how many guns, isn't it odd how little violence committed with firearms there actually is, statistically? Seems like there are a ton of law abiding, peaceful, non-violent people, like 99.99% of gun owners, who are not contributing to the societal ills surrounding firearms. And the horrific corners and pockets of behaviors that are occurring, as I've said going back to the Gun thread, which are granular and need granular solutions, are lost in the crude, broad, blunt instruments and interests that frame America's "gun debate cage fight" which is doing a disservice to us all, the victims foremost.

You forget the first clause which references militias.

No I did not, my fellow militia friend. The militia is you, the militia is me. I'm off to, well, regulate. Have a nice weekend!

[Kismet]

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.

Respectfully disagree as the words in the Constitution are very clear. Very spelled out. The right to keep and bear arms by individuals is there, in black and white. Before and during the creation of the words now enshrined is a great deal of written material - the actual words of the framers - which made it patently clear of the individual right (the operative and restrictive clauses), and the prefatory clause confirms that individual right via the militia's (being the whole of the people) purpose, and the militia's preparedness (well regulation) as integral. We must be reading different source material. And we'll be circling in a cross purpose forever loop, so when your rebuttals to this paragraph come in I preemptively thank you, respect you, and will refrain from reengaging.

None of this is about want, or need, or privileges. Or hardcore or extreme anything. With how many Americans owning how many guns, isn't it odd how little violence committed with firearms there actually is, statistically? Seems like there are a ton of law abiding, peaceful, non-violent people, like 99.99% of gun owners, who are not contributing to the societal ills surrounding firearms. And the horrific corners and pockets of behaviors that are occurring, as I've said going back to the Gun thread, which are granular and need granular solutions, are lost in the crude, broad, blunt instruments and interests that frame America's "gun debate cage fight" which is doing a disservice to us all, the victims foremost.

You forget the first clause which references militias.

No I did not, my fellow militia friend. The militia is you, the militia is me. I'm off to, well, regulate. Have a nice weekend!

Really? Quite a leap there. Well regulated precedes militia.....

[cradleandshoot]

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.

Respectfully disagree as the words in the Constitution are very clear. Very spelled out. The right to keep and bear arms by individuals is there, in black and white. Before and during the creation of the words now enshrined is a great deal of written material - the actual words of the framers - which made it patently clear of the individual right (the operative and restrictive clauses), and the prefatory clause confirms that individual right via the militia's (being the whole of the people) purpose, and the militia's preparedness (well regulation) as integral. We must be reading different source material. And we'll be circling in a cross purpose forever loop, so when your rebuttals to this paragraph come in I preemptively thank you, respect you, and will refrain from reengaging.

None of this is about want, or need, or privileges. Or hardcore or extreme anything. With how many Americans owning how many guns, isn't it odd how little violence committed with firearms there actually is, statistically? Seems like there are a ton of law abiding, peaceful, non-violent people, like 99.99% of gun owners, who are not contributing to the societal ills surrounding firearms. And the horrific corners and pockets of behaviors that are occurring, as I've said going back to the Gun thread, which are granular and need granular solutions, are lost in the crude, broad, blunt instruments and interests that frame America's "gun debate cage fight" which is doing a disservice to us all, the victims foremost.

You forget the first clause which references militias.

No I did not, my fellow militia friend. The militia is you, the militia is me. I'm off to, well, regulate. Have a nice weekend!

Really? Quite a leap there. Well regulated precedes militia.....

And then how is " well regulated " suppose to be defined? I'm willing to wager that if you asked a 1000 people to define well regulated you would wind up with a 1000 different definitions. My question would be what entity should be in charge of doing the regulating?

[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.

Respectfully disagree as the words in the Constitution are very clear. Very spelled out. The right to keep and bear arms by individuals is there, in black and white. Before and during the creation of the words now enshrined is a great deal of written material - the actual words of the framers - which made it patently clear of the individual right (the operative and restrictive clauses), and the prefatory clause confirms that individual right via the militia's (being the whole of the people) purpose, and the militia's preparedness (well regulation) as integral. We must be reading different source material. And we'll be circling in a cross purpose forever loop, so when your rebuttals to this paragraph come in I preemptively thank you, respect you, and will refrain from reengaging.

In what world does "outside sources" have thing one to do what's in the Constitution? There aren't footnotes or citations in the thing. There is the document

You cannot run away from the word "militia". It's in there on purpose. If they didn't care about them? They wouldn't have put that word in. So sorry, you can't look at anything by the words IN the Constitution to decide what that means.

That said, as NJBill and I are pointing out? Just because the Constitution spells out that the 2A is about gun rights is tied to militia service (militias that no longer exist, obviousl), doesn't mean that Americans can't have guns, anymore than the fact that the Constitution doesn't list the right to open a grocery store means that Americans can't own and operate a grocery store.

In short, I can agree with the right to have a gun, AND understand that the 2A is about militias at the same time.

None of this is about want, or need, or privileges. Or hardcore or extreme anything. With how many Americans owning how many guns, isn't it odd how little violence committed with firearms there actually is, statistically? Seems like there are a ton of law abiding, peaceful, non-violent people, like 99.99% of gun owners, who are not contributing to the societal ills surrounding firearms.

I think your fellow Americans would disagree with how you're moving the statistics around to make it sound like gun violence isn't a thing in America.

But I agree with you completely that our attention should be on things like mental health, or education as a panacea for gun violence, and crime in general. Taking guns away won't do diddly, imho.

[a fan]

Easy first fix? Go back to the days when we spent significant money on Mental Health, and beds and treatment for those who need it. Reagan ripped all that apart, and kickstarted the homelessness crisis. Mental Health spending would knock out a whole MESS of shootings in America, and help to clean up our streets from homeless folks who are simply just.....in need of mental health care.

Won't happen in my lifetime, that much is clear.

What in our Constitution / 2A addresses mental health?

It doesn't. It also doesn't mention distilleries, and yet.......

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

In what world does "outside sources" have thing one to do what's in the Constitution? There aren't footnotes or citations in the thing. There is the document

You cannot run away from the word "militia". It's in there on purpose. If they didn't care about them? They wouldn't have put that word in. So sorry, you can't look at anything by the words IN the Constitution to decide what that means.

I think your fellow Americans would disagree with how you're moving the statistics around to make it sound like gun violence isn't a thing in America.

Here we go again.

Historical documents ("outside sources") have nothing to do with 1) understanding how what is enshrined in the Constitution 2) how it was arrived at and 3) its intended meaning in the words of those where were there? I'm so confused.

************
I'm not running from the word militia, but rather many here are (IMHO) fully bought in to a modern day "collectivist reinterpretation" brought to us by organizations such as the Joyce Foundation which I've referenced above. Free country. You do you. I'll go with the research and arguments on both sides – from before the constitution was ratified right up until today – and do me.

Wish they had just gone with Madison's first draft (I grabbed this off Congress' website, in their "How the 2A was born" section - with them utilizing "outside sources"), but eliminating the "Quaker specific conscientious objector" wording:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. The committee of the House of Representatives that considered Madison’s formulation altered the order of the clauses such that the militia clause now came first, with a new specification of the militia as composed of the body of the people, and made several other wording and punctuation changes.

*************
In truth, the Federalist, Anti Federalist, Madison, Mason, et. al. founding documents and historical accounts of the time, including letters and pamphlets and newspaper accounts and diaries, are really fascinating, especially when one realizes the ages (youth) of those directly involved in the creation of a newly born nation. Awe inspiring, actually. Yet here we are, in 2024, divided, discouraged, lost, or so it seems. But I digress.

*************

Never suggested "gun violence isn't a thing", or knowingly engaged in some sort of statistical shell game. I endeavor to share what I learn, and what makes sense to me, and be respectful of other's opinions and takes. Are you referring to my 99.99% comment above as suggesting I feel gun violence isn't a thing? If so, I think we've ending up somewhere here:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/logical-fallacies/

The point I was trying to make is "Why, if 99.99% of Americans who own guns are peaceful and law abiding, are so many of the existing and proposed gun laws and policies pointed directly at them? Shouldn't we instead point solutions directly at those perpetrating criminal violence (with any tool, and including guns), and the underlying causes which are at the foundation for the behavior? That was my inference and intent, hopefully more clearly explained?

**************

Alright, doing my best here. Sometimes what seems logical in my brain doesn't emanate from my keyboard. Appreciate those who take the time to share their takes. I learn from most here. Now I'm going to settings to shut off alerts for thread activity and responses. Fanlax is like time parasite. It's a beautiful day and my gardening procrastination needs to end right now!

Be well.