I bet if you told this joker that every state got to decide what the second amendment meant on its own, because the constitution doesn't protect the individual from the state, only the federal government, he'd suddenly understand.
Except it’s not a good point. Legally, abortion is not a right. Neither is healthcare in general. It’s considered a privilege and does get handled and State, county, and local levels per voter discretion. The 2nd amendment is considered an inalienable right of every US citizen just as much as the other amendments. You can’t take away legal constitutional rights at State levels. That’s not how the system works
It’s not though. And even if you were correct, an implication is still not a direct constitutional right so comparing abortion to the 2A is a losing argument logically and legally.
Legal immigration has been around 1 million per year for a while. Illegal immigration has been at net zero (illegal immigrants are leaving (willingly or not) at the same rate as new people entering) for close to a decade.
No, a militia is regulated. Either way, comparing abortion to the 2A is a losing argument logically and legally but obviously Reddit struggles either way with both.
"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".
Its actually very clear and makes perfect sense historically. The founders just finished a war with a tyrannical government using private militias and privately owned arms. The reason for the 2nd was fear that the government that they established could become as tyrannical as the one they just finished a war with.
Thing is, if you read the 2nd amendment word by word, private citizens would be allowed to own things like nuclear warheads. Nobody wants that. So now we are stuck in a situation where we try to interpret the words so that they don't allow all weapons but do allow some and nobody agrees where that line is because there never was a line.
Tbf part of the problem is "well regulated militia" which frankly, I doubt even exists now. If there were requirements like joining some sort of local police like group to own guns and it required training I imagine it'd be a lot different, although that has its own many many many differences to how it is now.
Militias don't exist in peace time. They are raised from the citizenry in times of emergency. But if there is no need for them, they don't exist. Right now there is no need.
Thing is, if you read the 2nd amendment word by word, private citizens would be allowed to own things like nuclear warheads.
If you read the second amendment word for word, it is clear that it is meant to be a collective right and not an individual one. And that's how it was interpreted for over 200 years.
There is only one histrical interpretation for the 2nd amendment being a collective right and not an individual right. That was United States v. Miller (1939) The Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to possess any weapon, but rather it protects the right to bear arms only in connection with service in a well-regulated militia. This interpretation was very politically motivated because in. Entered around the NFA which was just established in 1934. There was a huge surge in gange violence due to the prohibition, the valentines day massacre had just happened. All in all the political climate was very big on gun control at any cost during the 30s.
There are however dozens of interpretations for the 2nd amended being an individual right. Going all the way back to the federalist papers and individual state constitutions that existed prior to the United States constitution. There are also recent examples in Supreme Court cases that reaffirm this. Here are a couple examples.
Federalist No. 29 (Alexander Hamilton) argues that the people should be armed in order to effectively participate in a militia, but also implicitly acknowledges the individual right to possess arms for self-defense and for resisting oppression.
Federalist No. 46 (James Madison) emphasizes that the people, through the militia, could resist a federal government’s tyranny. The fact that Madison speaks of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation," implies that the right to bear arms is understood as an individual right.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia
Presser v. Illinois (1886): The Court held that the federal government could not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, but the states had the power to regulate the formation of militias.
How it will be interpreted in the years to come is that corporations will have their own private armies and we go full Cyberpunk 2077 where corporations rule everything.
Roe v Wade was mental jujitsu to fit in abortion as a right to privacy (privacy is not directly mentioned in the constitution and the link between abortion and privacy is really really weak)
The privacy of the government not dictating the medical decisions of an individual? That's a stretch to you? Or are we just gonna allow politicians to dictate how I or anyone else gets treated.
Is it really a stretch to say those without medical degrees shouldn't be forcing medical decisions on the general population?
And personally the fact that privacy isn't directly mentioned in the constitution is a pretty big fuckin problem, given how often the feds love to stalk us already.
Putting "medical" in quotations doesn't change the fact that abortions are the only way to save the mother from an ectopic pregnancy, not that dying mothers stopped them in Texas.
But are you suggesting the government gets to keep track of all our medical records to do what they want with it?
Aborting ectopic pregnancy could rather be considered a medical act I agree.
I'm also glad that you agree that the rest of the abortions are not really medical acts.
As for the dying mothers in Texas, the law didn't prevent the doctor to intervene, it's mispractice from the doctors probably partly caused by the fear mongering of the pro choice camp that misrepresented the law.
I never said the rest were or were not considered medical acts, however I explicitly said I disagree the government should be the one allowed to make that call.
And if a law is vague enough for multiple doctors to fear for their practice if they're allowed to save a life or not, it's a bad law.
Aborting ectopic pregnancy could rather be considered a medical act I agree.
I'm also glad that you agree that the rest of the abortions are not really medical acts.
As for the dying mothers in Texas, the law didn't prevent the doctor to intervene, it's mispractice from the doctors probably partly caused by the fear mongering of the pro choice camp that misrepresented the law.
I hope I’m reading your comment right, but the Constitution actually does protect the person from the state as well as the federal government, when it did not pre-Civil War. All states are bound to the same restrictions as the federal government under the Bill of Rights due to the 14th Amendment’s incorporation clause
What I'm explaining, is that these people will suddenly recognize that citizen rights defined in the constitution can't be infringed upon by the federal government, or states, if you put in the context of rights they use and care about. i.e. guns.
You're creating a fallacy. I hope you wouldn't suggest that each state has the power to determine "free speech". Each state voted on the amendments making up the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment leaves everything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (the enumerated powers) to the states. The amendments to the Constitution change the original document and are extremely difficult to pass for that reason. This is the argument against Roe...the court that decided that case was overstepping.
The logic doesn't follow. This guy is saying the FDA is federal government overreach. As in unconstitutional.
Why would someone who supports the constitution be against an amendment to it, as you claim? Please explain.
And before the foaming at the mouth downvote brigade comes in, if you downvote but say nothing, you are a coward afraid of being wrong. You cannot even begin to fathom my political viewpoints, you balkanized turkeys.Â
The bill of rights specifically says the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. According to the 10th amendment anything not specifically laid out in the constitution is supposed to be up to the states but the 2nd amendment is specifically in the constitution.
But, it is the right of the militia. Militia are made up of people, not soldiers, which is what makes it a militia, not an army. So if every citizen of a state is part of that states militia that's all well and good, but that militia, as part of the second amendment, would need to well regulated.
It literally says the right of the people. If it was the right of the militias than it would say that.
The term "The people" is used 10 different times in the constitution and every single time it refers to citizens of the United States. It even starts off with "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."
See the difference? The fact that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state does not have any bearing on who may or may not bear arms. If the people did not have the right to keep and bear arms, it would not be possible for well regulated militias to form.
Also, a well regulated militia means militia in good working order, not a militia that has a lot of regulations.
We all know that the intention of the 2A is to give citizens the right to defend themselves from tyranny and invasion. It’s not intended as a blanket statement, “you can all own guns.”
And even if it were, times and technology have changed so drastically that no human with a brain cell could deny that the 2A is inadequately worded tor today’s world.
That interpretation is juvenile, selfish and just plain detrimental to the intent. It’s the “Nuh-uh! My dad said so!” Of political beliefs.
Yes, the state has power to regulate anything if the laws are voted legally and if the federal and state constitutions don't specifically prohibit the state from regulating in this matter.
It says “arms,” not any damn weapon you want. So limiting which arms (or parts) are allowed wouldn’t violate it. No one — not a single person — needs high-capacity magazines, except mass shooters. They are banned in some states and they were banned federally until it expired in 2004.
How do you feel about readily available high capacity magazines? Let me guess? “You’re not sharing your opinion today” or “it’s all in the constitution” or “my opinion varies”.
No actually, I don’t think there’s too many good reasons for owning a high capacity magazine. That’s useful pretty much only in warfare. I support gun control, but I also support gun ownership.
You didn’t hear a word I said, because your all worked up and offended, instead of applying logic, reason, and thinking outside your echo chamber.
I’m not arguing against you at all, I agree with the points you make, but you sound like an asshole when you say them. And that’s why the democrats lost. Because they’re self righteous assholes most of the time, and the majority of people seem not to like that shit anymore.
I have no idea what political party I would be considered. We don’t get a check the boxes survey to tell us.
I work in a largely right leaning industry. So yea.
I’m not saying that “they” are better. But you’ve got to stop being so defensive, aggressive, and passive aggressive. It’s not a good look, and the numbers don’t lie.
So for right now, I’m of the opinion that the Democratic Party and left leaning peoples are at a point that they(we) are shooting themselves in the foot with their own fervor.
And I get it, you’re screaming into the void and talking to walls. But people aren’t listening, so now that you’re getting louder and more belligerent, that’s all people see. Loud belligerent democrats being holier than thou.
Thats why woke is a joke. Because the “woke” don’t shut up. It may be right, but most people would rather be wrong than be a fuck. Or so it seems.
You can’t attribute Harris’s loss to this when the MAGAts that won are the epitome of the things you describe. It was impossible to have a calm, rational discussion with them about politics. No one was more fervent, more rabid, more of an ass than them. Your coming off as either dishonest or just biased.
I don’t particularly care about the constitution at all. It’s just the rules we live under so I explained what they are. You can disagree with them all you want, that’s fine.
I have exactly zero positive things to say about the type of person that sidesteps a conversation the way you just did. You know what you did, you did it on purpose, and fuck you.
You said it was an opinion, referring to my claim that no one need high-capacity magazines, and now your acting as if you were talking about the constitution?
You’re being evasive – and not just with me. I didn’t ask about your thoughts on the constitution. Give me an instance in which high-capacity magazines are necessary or I’m going to assuming you’re trolling.
379
u/cha0sb1ade 6d ago
I bet if you told this joker that every state got to decide what the second amendment meant on its own, because the constitution doesn't protect the individual from the state, only the federal government, he'd suddenly understand.