๐ณ๐ฑ
Seems pretty clear to me, want to place limits on it, get support for a new amendment.
@freemo right on. And before someone posts the "well regulated militia" argument, the militia at that time was the able-bodied male population. The 2a is definitely about the general public being armed and trained to repel either invasion or tyranny.
If the Federal government wanted to take the 2a seriously, they should be expanding the Civilian Marksmanship Program and offering free rifle lessons in high school.
@mike805 @freemo even if that were the case (it's isn't), you still have them "well-regulated" bit. Also, if the first part is to be taken for sacred, by your interpretation then only white men should have the right to bear arms?
The reification of an old document is a choice. One that is killing our children. Guns are the number one cause of death for children in America! Our life expectancy is way lower than all other advanced countries. Choosing this mortality for an interpretation of an old text is the definition of a death cult. One that is imposed on a majority of Americans who do not want it.
@lmrocha @freemo then change it The Founders put in a procedure to change the Constitution. If a strong majority really does oppose the public ownership of guns, then you should have no trouble getting an amendment passed, right? A previous generation of progressive activists actually managed to get a ban on alcohol passed as an amendment, so it's not impossible.
I don't agree with you, but campaigning for an amendment would be the honest approach.
@mike805 @freemo if we had a democracy that would work, but we have an oligarchy where the lobby of the gun manufacturers out votes the people. Just see what the supreme court did recently to my state of New York. Our democratically enacted gun controls were wiped.
And if you don't believe we are in an oligarchy, see the news about Clarence Thomas. That is why I take issue with this reification of the founding fathers. That is all a smoke screen to face that there is no democracy on this issue. It's the rule of the lobby, which I very much doubt the founding fathers intended. Indeed, a century later Lincoln called the death penalty for profiteers, which is what the gun manufacturers who profit from there daily assassination of American children are.
@mike805 @freemo you have changed the interpretation of only the bits you like: guns for all, when it was meant for well regulated militia of white men. There was no need for amendments to change that interpretation. But if we want to set the limits clearly specified by the "well regulated" bit (the point @freemo was commenting with meme, incorrectly in my view) then we need an amendment. Isn't that convenient? Of course it is all a matter of interpretation, which depends on the supreme court, which depends on money---or a president with the balls to pack it.
The only hope it's that this conservative overreach (as in Tennessee and recent supreme court rulings) will result in a youth backlash that has not been seen since 1969.
@freemo @mike805
Dude, for the founding fathers, "we the people" meant men with property. Voting was not universal. Everything about the second amendment, from gun technology to whom it applied to (it certainly did not apply to slaves), the concept of militia and regulation has changed, and so has its interpretation.
The way it characterizes "well regulated militia" for instance, is because they really had no concept of national army as we have today. The idea of serving in a national army did not exist until after the french revolution and Napoleon. Up to that point, soldiers were paid by kings to fight for the king's army in defense of his property and lands. Those were the days when people like the founding fathers were defining how armies, national and state guards should work.
Well no argument that the justices will abuse their reach by misinterpriting the constitution... luckily with the right lean in the supreme court we are likely to see stronger defense of the #2A, though I'd much rather this be done by the way the constitution is designed to work rather than to be at the whims of a supreme court.
@lmrocha
None of this argument is relevant.. yes a lot of people were oppressed, we passed amendments to protect them (and their right to own guns as an extension)... Again, this is the point, if you want to change the current state of the constitution, create an amendment.
@mike805