The Illegitimacy of the Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The other 9 amendments in the BOR recognize individual rights. The 2nd amendment created the state national guards. It’s a collective right, not an individual right. It’s just that it was accidentally inserted into a document that otherwise had a listing of individual rights. It was an oversight, a mistake. The sooner we acknowledge that the sooner we can do away with these guns.

Cite?

DP but this is correct. After all, why do you think the Framers said "well regulated militia?" And why do you think the same authors of the 2nd Amendment then went on to pass the Militia Act within 6 months of ratifying 2A, which further defined exactly what they were talking about? And for those who stupidly invented mythology about "to protect us against tyrannical government" read a bit about what else happened within a few months of passage of 2A - some citizens took up arms against what they thought was tyrannical about the newly founded American government, the Whiskey tax. And again, those exact same Founding Fathers authorized George Washington to take said militia to put down the armed insurrection. That provides vastly more true and accurate historical context and insight into what the Founders had in mind than any of the bogus NRA talking points ever will.

From the Militia Act you cite.

I. “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed”

Note the section above - militia member needs to bring their own arms when called up. So if having arms was not an individual right. Then the US would have had an unarmed militia.

[Anonymous]

If the Constitution were followed, States would be permitted to regulate firearm ownership, acquisition, and possession in a way that best serves their militia needs. The 2nd Amendment is best read as a guarantee that the federal government would not infringe on a State's right to arm a well-regulated militia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the Constitution were followed, States would be permitted to regulate firearm ownership, acquisition, and possession in a way that best serves their militia needs. The 2nd Amendment is best read as a guarantee that the federal government would not infringe on a State's right to arm a well-regulated militia.

But that is not the best interpretation of the Bill of Rights which enumerated the basic rights of individuals not the basic rights of States.

Since the right to bear arms is given to the people by the Constitution the States have no authority over the people’s rights to bear arms in spite of what the Governors of New York or Illinois May desire.

It will take time, as it should, for the process to play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, there was a time in the not too distant past when anyone could order a gun through the Sears’s catalog. So mail order purchases no background checks, no questions anyone could buy.

AR-15?

You could buy an M1 Carbine. A 15 shot semiautomatic rifle. The AR-15 of its day from the Sears catalog.

Access to guns is not the issue. The fact that mentally deficient people are walking the streets instead of being properly cared for in institutions that is the problem.

LOL. So you’re telling me there’s no “mentally deficient” people in literally every other developed country?

[Anonymous]

Yes, there are mentally ill people in other countries. But they are cared for in institutions not roaming free. Johnson’s great society programs have led us to where we are today.

It is very hard to get someone with mental issues help unless the volunteer to seek it or until they have committed a violent crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are mentally ill people in other countries. But they are cared for in institutions not roaming free. Johnson’s great society programs have led us to where we are today.

It is very hard to get someone with mental issues help unless the volunteer to seek it or until they have committed a violent crime.

It was Reagan who deinstitutionalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are mentally ill people in other countries. But they are cared for in institutions not roaming free. Johnson’s great society programs have led us to where we are today.

It is very hard to get someone with mental issues help unless the volunteer to seek it or until they have committed a violent crime.

I’m sorry, now you are saying the Great Society is why we have dramatically higher rates of gun deaths than Europe!!?

Do you know how crazy that sounds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But that is not the best interpretation of the Bill of Rights which enumerated the basic rights of individuals not the basic rights of States.

You are straining to read a "rights of individuals" parameter into the Bill of Rights. If that's what the Framers intended, they could have said so. They didn't. It's nothing more than a dubious way of ignoring that they actually did say, "well-regulated militia."

[Anonymous]

While we're talking about illegitimate Supreme Court decisions, corporations shouldn't be "people" with the rights of individuals. That was some magical thinking that the Supreme Court read into the Constitution for the benefit of rich people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are mentally ill people in other countries. But they are cared for in institutions not roaming free. Johnson’s great society programs have led us to where we are today.

It is very hard to get someone with mental issues help unless the volunteer to seek it or until they have committed a violent crime.

Before we allow anyone have a gun they should be made to prove they are mentally competent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But that is not the best interpretation of the Bill of Rights which enumerated the basic rights of individuals not the basic rights of States.

You are straining to read a "rights of individuals" parameter into the Bill of Rights. If that's what the Framers intended, they could have said so. They didn't. It's nothing more than a dubious way of ignoring that they actually did say, "well-regulated militia."

Yes, and the militia was comprised of able bodied citizens who brought their own weapons when called to serve.

The context is clear, agree the addition of the subordinate clause, give those who choose to engage in a convoluted argument a place to start.

Fortunately the court has the capacity to understand the context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are mentally ill people in other countries. But they are cared for in institutions not roaming free. Johnson’s great society programs have led us to where we are today.

It is very hard to get someone with mental issues help unless the volunteer to seek it or until they have committed a violent crime.

I’m sorry, now you are saying the Great Society is why we have dramatically higher rates of gun deaths than Europe!!?

Do you know how crazy that sounds?

The reason for higher gun deaths in the US vs Europe is varied and not tied to availability of guns.

Let’s take the Swiss every male between 18-60 must have a gun and be proficient in its use. Few incidents of gun violence because the nation has a common ethos and take care of any mentally ill individuals. On average they are also better educated than Americans.

Gun-ownership in certain other countries is restricted as a result of WW 2. Again by and large European’s are better educated take care of their mentally ill citizens and have a common national identity. This of course will result in the collapse of the EU.

But to sum up why less gun deaths in Europe. Post WW 2 restriction, better education across the citizenry. Common ethos which supports appropriate care for the mentally ill.

American on the other hand has lost its common ethos, has seen the public education system collapse in big cities and is now seeing it across the country.

America has become a tribal nation, with many of the tribes being unfamiliar with civilization.

[Anonymous]

Here are some parenthetical comments to help those that think the 2nd amendment is a state right.

A well regulated (prepared to fight) Militia (all citizens capable of fighting) being necessary (important) to the security of a free State (for defense against invaders) the right of the people (all citizens) to keep and bear Arms (all weapons) shall not be infringed (very simple concept).

[Anonymous]

Just reading things into the document to make it say what you want. You could make big Crow money as a “textualist” right wing Justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The other 9 amendments in the BOR recognize individual rights. The 2nd amendment created the state national guards. It’s a collective right, not an individual right. It’s just that it was accidentally inserted into a document that otherwise had a listing of individual rights. It was an oversight, a mistake. The sooner we acknowledge that the sooner we can do away with these guns.

Yes, the framers spent all that time and effort, yet made such a mistake. Must be nice in your fantasy world.

I think that was sarcasm.