Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[TheDemonLord]

OK, so the 2A needs amending to reflect modern times, not repelling. Just make an AMENDMENT to insert some common sense gun laws in there that I listed elsewhere that you (tdl) agreed was sensible. Doing nothing is beyond stupid - and mind numbingly selfish.

I wouldn't phrase it like that, but I'm feeling charitable.

Here's the rub - look at Husa's graphs - not anything I picked - nearly 70% opposition to touching 2A. I believe there was a yougov poll that put opposition even higher at 79%.

It seems clear the majority of Americans don't want to touch the 2nd Amdendment. Therefore as it stands - 'Shall not be infringed'.

Supreme court judges are there for life and represent the pinnacle of justice in arguably the most important democracy in the World, so they better be fucking squeaky clean. The four I listed are not - not even close.
Just the fact that Clarence has had a billionaire pay for very expensive paid holidays for years, his god child nephew or whatevas tuition paid for, and his mothers house purchased that she still lives in it stinks to high heaven. These people need to be beyond reproach. I give not one shit what colour, race, or sex or political team they belong to.

It seems to have eluded you that Crow is a businessman, and he could well be offering a judge in his pocket as a paid service to other businessmen with a vested interest in a certain outcome. If Clarence wasn't accepting shit he REALLY ethically should not be, then it would not be an issue.
Really, 90% of your diatribe could at best be (very charitably) described as flailing flatulence.

Is Clarence allowed to have friends? You say 'Very expensive holidays' - to you and I, sure - to someone on nearly $300K USD a year, not so much. To a Billionaire even less so.

When it first came out - I had a look at the claims - and one thing was consistently absent - an example where Justice Thomas had ruled in case that was tangentially connected to Crow, which isn't in-line with his Textualist position.

He's probably the most consistent in his positions regarding the constitution - which makes it hard to stick the label of corruption to him.

Oh and Trump does own slaves - 271 of them in fact.

Haha, good joke. I just found it funny that even Obama had family ties to Slavery, but Trump - nope, he has none. I thought that was hilarious.

That is the number of gop senators and congressmen/women who were too stupid to get rid of Trump when they were given the chance in 2019, then again in 2021 \
Looks like trump will steamroll his primary as meatballs numbers have only gone down since he declared his run officially. Your best hope is Biden runs, and going off how the mid terms went, the gop will still be toast - again.
Biden is so hard to watch now, his speech, the way he walks - looks like he will be lucky to make it to the end of next week, yet alone another 4 years. And the invisible woman VP Harris is about as popular as a soggy sandwich.
Trump and Biden =

Serious question though: You've experienced the world under Trump and the world under Biden - which one did you prefer?

In terms of candidates, it will probably be Trump vs Desantis - Desantis though I don't think will beat Trump.

On the Democrat side - you've got RFK who is an interesting pick. Certainly has name recognition - but he's not popular with the activist wing of the Democrats (they view him as like Thulsi Ghabbard as the Dem equivalent of a RINO and have been getting their smears in already) - After that - who?

[husaberg]

OK, so the 2A needs amending to reflect modern times, not repelling. Just make an AMENDMENT to insert some common sense gun laws in there that I listed elsewhere that you (tdl) agreed was sensible. Doing nothing is beyond stupid - and mind numbingly selfish.
.

I don't think it needs changing The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" -- was passed by Congress in 1789 and ratified two years later. it never mentions or alludes to, explicitly declare any right to have a semiautomatic rifle, a version of which wasn't invented until about a century later. only the right to keep and bear arms are mentioned.
The U.S. Supreme Court also has also not explicitly declared a constitutional right to semiautomatic rifles.

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

United States v. Miller supported an individual-right rather than a collective-right view, contrary to the dominant 20th-century interpretation of that decision. (In Miller, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal law requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”) Finally, the court held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the central component” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

It's interesting that R65s not looking toward her hero putins gun laws.

[Russians own more than 20 million guns, under permits for hunting and sport. Weapons with magazines that have more than ten cartridges or fire bursts of bullets are already outlawed. In order to be granted a permit, citizens must obtain a mental health certificate from a medical professional

[Kickaha]

that would be the law that says 'Shall not be infringed' -

We've already established certain groups of people are not allowed to own or possess firearms in the USA, Federal laws routinely "infringe" upon that right

[Pursang]

A "well balanced" SCOTUS can always re-define what a "Well Regulated Militia" implies, and requires!

Don't try to play the "observance of precedent" Joker card. Already been Trump'd in the Roe v Wade reversal.

Every Goddam' Bubba with a gun, needs to rock up for weekly militia exercises, to prepare to defend the union from the imminent Xi'na threat!

[TheDemonLord]

I don't think it needs changing The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" -- was passed by Congress in 1789 and ratified two years later. it never mentions or alludes to, explicitly declare any right to have a semiautomatic rifle, a version of which wasn't invented until about a century later. only the right to keep and bear arms are mentioned.
The U.S. Supreme Court also has also not explicitly declared a constitutional right to semiautomatic rifles.

Are you trying to say that a Semi-Auto Rifle is not 'Arms'?

If you *really* want to talk about what was absolutely alluded to - An individual had the full right to own every type of Weapon that was available to the Government - which would include Semi-Auto rifles and full autos.

[TheDemonLord]

We've already established certain groups of people are not allowed to own or possess firearms in the USA, Federal laws routinely "infringe" upon that right

I mean convicted Felons aside (as there is precedent that certain crimes have consequences past jail time, both at the time of the constitution and before) and those who aren't mentally competent (again, long history of precedent there) - I'm not sure who you mean.

But if it makes you happy - yes, I agree that several Federal laws infringe on that right...

And they should be scrapped.

Such as repealing the NFA.

[TheDemonLord]

A "well balanced" SCOTUS can always re-define what a "Well Regulated Militia" implies, and requires!

Allow me to talk about the infamous comma.

See, this has long been a point of contention between liberal justices who seek to redefine the constitution (a position I disagree with) and the Originalist/Textualist position (which suffice to say I do agree with).

The comma was argued about at length - it's purpose is to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is what is to be protected, not the right of the Well regulated militia.

Then, if there's any doubt - we can refer to the Federalist papers to read explicitly what the intent of the founding fathers was when drafting it.

Don't try to play the "observance of precedent" Joker card. Already been Trump'd in the Roe v Wade reversal.

I've said elsewhere - but I'm very much on the RBG train here - Roe was a bad law from the start. The Dobbs decision was, according to the law and the constitution, absolutely correct. Hopefully the SCOTUS can undo just about every act of Judicial activism that has occurred in the last 70 years.

Then, if there are issues that need to be federally protected (like being able to access contraception as an unmarried person) - then, they can actually do things properly and get an amendment to the constitution.

Every Goddam' Bubba with a gun, needs to rock up for weekly militia exercises, to prepare to defend the union from the imminent Xi'na threat!

An amusing thought, but no - the right to self-defense is not predicated on any requirement from the individual (that's why it's a right, not a privilege).

[pete376403]

Are you trying to say that a Semi-Auto Rifle is not 'Arms'?

If you *really* want to talk about what was absolutely alluded to - An individual had the full right to own every type of Weapon that was available to the Government - which would include Semi-Auto rifles and full autos.

WAS or IS available to the Government (at the time the amendment was written)? If "Was" then yes, you can own a black powder muzzle loader or perhaps a cannon. If "Is", them every individual should have a nuke if they want to.

[pritch]

WAS or IS available to the Government (at the time the amendment was written)? If "Was" then yes, you can own a black powder muzzle loader or perhaps a cannon. If "Is", them every individual should have a nuke if they want to.

The 2A advocates always overlook the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment. The 2A was never intended to include every mentally ill, knuckle dragging, redneck. Despite the objections of one hereabout it more closely describes the National Guard.

[TheDemonLord]

WAS or IS available to the Government (at the time the amendment was written)? If "Was" then yes, you can own a black powder muzzle loader or perhaps a cannon. If "Is", them every individual should have a nuke if they want to.

Both.

Now, to be clear - I'm not advocating for everyone having a Nuke if they wanted it.

But I am saying that this would be in-line with 2A, as written.

I've seen some arguments that the projection of strategic power (which is what a Nuclear weapon is) falls outside of 2A - but there is a lot of grey area in that argument.

[TheDemonLord]

The 2A advocates always overlook the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment.

There's that pesky Comma again....

The 2A was never intended to include every mentally ill, knuckle dragging, redneck.

It meant every able bodied adult.

Despite the objections of one hereabout it more closely describes the National Guard.

No, it doesn't.

And again - I get to point to the repeated SCOTUS rulings on this, the Federalist papers etc.

Like it or not, my interpretation is correct. It's correct because it's also the SCOTUS' interpretation.

The Comma clearly separates the two statements. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the People, Not the Well Regulated Militia, not the National Guard - The People. The same 'We The People' that the US Constitution references in it's opening statement.

If the US wants to change it's gun laws at the federal level, then it must change 2A - but as per Husa - there's 60+% opposition to this.

[Pursang]

Hopefully the SCOTUS can undo just about every act of Judicial activism that has occurred in the last 70 years.

That will work well, for the second amendment! Takes things back to US v Miller, 1939

The Supreme Court’s most thorough consideration of the Second Amendment in the twentieth century came in United States v. Miller, a 1939 decision that seemed to tie the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" to militia use. Miller involved a federal statute, the National Firearms Act, which required registration of short-barreled shotguns, among other things. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Miller Court observed that "[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view."The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

(https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ALDE_00013263/)

Defense of the State...nothing about the later "Personal Self Defence" interpretations. (A cut-off shotgun is great for personal self defense)

[TheDemonLord]

That will work well, for the second amendment! Takes things back to US v Miller, 1939

The Supreme Court’s most thorough consideration of the Second Amendment in the twentieth century came in United States v. Miller, a 1939 decision that seemed to tie the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" to militia use. Miller involved a federal statute, the National Firearms Act, which required registration of short-barreled shotguns, among other things. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Miller Court observed that "[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view."The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." It was upon this force that the states could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

I consider the NFA to be unconstitutional for reference.

However, what is interesting is you gloss over one of the key aspects of the decision...

"The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

Now - to be clear, I disagree with parts of the Miller decision - most notably that short-barrelled shotguns, AKA Trench Brooms were in use by the Military (and still are as breaching shotguns).

However, if you want a strict interpretation of the Miller decision - this line:

"when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Means Assault Rifles (actual, select-fire, full-auto Assault Rifles) for everyone. It also means LMGs, Grenade Launchers etc.

So, do you want the Miller decision to be strictly applied?

(https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ALDE_00013263/)

Defense of the State...nothing about the later "Personal Self Defence" interpretations. (A cut-off shotgun is great for personal self defense)

Except we have the Federalist papers.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power became usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. "

We also have Magna Carta, cited in the Heller decision:

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

[Pursang]

I consider the NFA to be unconstitutional for reference.

However, what is interesting is you gloss over one of the key aspects of the decision...

"The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

....... So, do you want the Miller decision to be strictly applied?

Of course!..That Was my point, apply it strictly to a properly organized, well regulated militia.
Not just every paranoid, delusional, conspiracy proponent.

No more input from me on #2. My wife (US Citizen) and I have no desire to return to the States.
We are sadly watching the disintergration of a former world leading nation now debased by the politics of Fear and Hate!

[TheDemonLord]

Of course!..That Was my point, apply it strictly to a properly organized, well regulated militia.
Not just every paranoid, delusional, conspiracy proponent.

Read it again.

The decision doesn't apply to a properly organized, well regulated militia.

It applies to the people.

And it says the People need access to "arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." - so, Machine guns for everyone.

I'm fine with this

No more input from me on #2. My wife (US Citizen) and I have no desire to return to the States.
We are sadly watching the disintergration of a former world leading nation now debased by the politics of Fear and Hate!

That's one view.

My view is that we are starting to see the pendulum swing back the other way and certain people are salty that their usurped institutional power is being taken away. There has been a long march by certain groups that share a common ideology and now that the rest of the people are seeing the results of these ideas, they are opposing it.