I know lots of people won't like my post, but here goes:
"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. " That's what it says, but what does it mean? That part about 'well regulated Militia' being put in the same sentence, first, seems confusing!
You can discuss what "the founders" meant all day, and you can discuss what the founding fathers would make of a society with a professional military and personal firearms unimaginable to them as this was written before 1800, and the third amendment- well, you all know what that is and how it points at how the British housed the Red Coats during the Revolutionary War... but all that really matters is
The 2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller. The court was divided. Justice Antonin Scalia, concluded that the phrase bear arms against would always refer to service in a militia. But bear arms by itself—could sometimes refer to an individual right. Justice John Paul Stevens, intimated that the phrase keep and bear arms was a fixed term of linguistics that always referred to militia service.
supreme.justia.com
As you can read at the Opinion Summary, there is something about an "Ordinary Type of Weapon", which leads to another push as to what that means, considering the time from 1800 to 2008 to now, and the 1934 National Firearms Act.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), which guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion. You can look that text up yourself. The important thing is that this case, for the first time, overturned the principle of Stare Decisis (which means to 'let things stand as they have been decided.') for the first time. The precedent has been set by a conservative court- previous Supreme Court decisions can now be overturned by new courts. That's simply the logical conclusion, or "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", as my mom used to say.
In 1920, 50% of the population lived in an urban area. WWI would be the first major mechanized war, gun historians can argue about which year the semi-automatic was invented but it's just about this time. By the time WW2 rolls around, gang violence (mostly regarding profits from the prohibition of alcohol) had newspaper headlines about tommy gun massacres in the streets and the 1934 Gun Control act highly regulated automatic weapons, explosive devices (artillery, I think), short barreled rifles and shotguns, and oddly even brass knuckles and knives that shot the blade out of the shaft by spring tension. It's still in place.
I was not around in 1934, but I am sure that there were fellows with firearms that felt that like someone was coming for all their guns, but things were not really settled until 2008. In 2022, a very conservative supreme court put it all back on the table again. Yet almost 100 years have passed, and the number of firearms and the amount of firepower per person has increased greatly. (I'm not gonna site anything but what I can put in my pocket now compared to a state of the art common Smith and Wesson revolver of 1934 (6 rounds) or 1911 acp (7 +1)).
People here have asked things like "How does a thumbhole stock make a rifle more lethal?" and the response might be "It does not, so why do you need it?"
"Because I have a right to it" is now a matter for the courts to decide.
"Because I want to dress my firearm up like kids dress up a doll and it's my hobby... these things don't change the function".. shows my bias against or indifference for this hobby. If they don't matter they are silly and might lead to some subconscious bias that they are toys (I am simply suggesting a possibility) or they actually increase lethality. "I just want to" isn't a reason.
"Because I make a profit selling these things" is, to me, a great deal at the heart of this issue.
The number one cause of death to children and teens is presently 'firearms related injury'. Look that up to see the graph and the New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most respected national sources for medical professionals.
Anyways, there is some source material.
The bottom line answer is "Now we let the courts work this all out, because the definition of what the second ammendment means now is up in the air because of another Supreme Court decision that the court can now reverse itself on what is a right."
ps. I remember...
- The President of the United States, the Attorney General and Martin Luther King all being assassinated. Then the Gun Control Act.
"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. " That's what it says, but what does it mean? That part about 'well regulated Militia' being put in the same sentence, first, seems confusing!
You can discuss what "the founders" meant all day, and you can discuss what the founding fathers would make of a society with a professional military and personal firearms unimaginable to them as this was written before 1800, and the third amendment- well, you all know what that is and how it points at how the British housed the Red Coats during the Revolutionary War... but all that really matters is
The 2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller. The court was divided. Justice Antonin Scalia, concluded that the phrase bear arms against would always refer to service in a militia. But bear arms by itself—could sometimes refer to an individual right. Justice John Paul Stevens, intimated that the phrase keep and bear arms was a fixed term of linguistics that always referred to militia service.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.
As you can read at the Opinion Summary, there is something about an "Ordinary Type of Weapon", which leads to another push as to what that means, considering the time from 1800 to 2008 to now, and the 1934 National Firearms Act.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), which guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion. You can look that text up yourself. The important thing is that this case, for the first time, overturned the principle of Stare Decisis (which means to 'let things stand as they have been decided.') for the first time. The precedent has been set by a conservative court- previous Supreme Court decisions can now be overturned by new courts. That's simply the logical conclusion, or "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", as my mom used to say.
In 1920, 50% of the population lived in an urban area. WWI would be the first major mechanized war, gun historians can argue about which year the semi-automatic was invented but it's just about this time. By the time WW2 rolls around, gang violence (mostly regarding profits from the prohibition of alcohol) had newspaper headlines about tommy gun massacres in the streets and the 1934 Gun Control act highly regulated automatic weapons, explosive devices (artillery, I think), short barreled rifles and shotguns, and oddly even brass knuckles and knives that shot the blade out of the shaft by spring tension. It's still in place.
I was not around in 1934, but I am sure that there were fellows with firearms that felt that like someone was coming for all their guns, but things were not really settled until 2008. In 2022, a very conservative supreme court put it all back on the table again. Yet almost 100 years have passed, and the number of firearms and the amount of firepower per person has increased greatly. (I'm not gonna site anything but what I can put in my pocket now compared to a state of the art common Smith and Wesson revolver of 1934 (6 rounds) or 1911 acp (7 +1)).
People here have asked things like "How does a thumbhole stock make a rifle more lethal?" and the response might be "It does not, so why do you need it?"
"Because I have a right to it" is now a matter for the courts to decide.
"Because I want to dress my firearm up like kids dress up a doll and it's my hobby... these things don't change the function".. shows my bias against or indifference for this hobby. If they don't matter they are silly and might lead to some subconscious bias that they are toys (I am simply suggesting a possibility) or they actually increase lethality. "I just want to" isn't a reason.
"Because I make a profit selling these things" is, to me, a great deal at the heart of this issue.
The number one cause of death to children and teens is presently 'firearms related injury'. Look that up to see the graph and the New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most respected national sources for medical professionals.
Anyways, there is some source material.
The bottom line answer is "Now we let the courts work this all out, because the definition of what the second ammendment means now is up in the air because of another Supreme Court decision that the court can now reverse itself on what is a right."
ps. I remember...
- The President of the United States, the Attorney General and Martin Luther King all being assassinated. Then the Gun Control Act.
