Saint
Observer
Posts: 1,111
Member is Online
|
Post by Saint on Sept 4, 2024 22:53:30 GMT
Does the 2nd amendment actually confer a right on American citizens to bear arms?
Not according to a journalist I've just been watching on BBC news (Susie Boniface). According to her, the US constitution confers the right to bear arms only on a 'well-regulated militia'. She argued that the average American citizen is not a member of a militia and, even if s/he were, it is not regulated. Therefore, the average American citizen actually has no legal right to bear arms.
A novel approach.
I don't suppose it makes much difference. I can't see anyone succeeding before the US Supreme Court with that argument. Is it a good argument otherwise, though?
I dunno. I'll reserve my judgment until I've read a few thoughts.
The second amendment reads: 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 4, 2024 23:03:41 GMT
It's an old argument.
It won't work though.
If children getting massacred at school doesn't make any difference then nothing will.
They just have to accept 30k firearms deaths a year as the price of freedum.
|
|
Saint
Observer
Posts: 1,111
Member is Online
|
Post by Saint on Sept 4, 2024 23:07:14 GMT
It's an old argument. It won't work though. If children getting massacred at school doesn't make any difference then nothing will. They just have to accept 30k firearms deaths a year as the price of freedum. Is it an old argument? It was new to me. I once heard it argued that the 2nd amendment technically gives every American citizen the right to own a nuclear weapon. I don't know what to make of that, either. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 4, 2024 23:08:52 GMT
This is how you fix it. Just 5 extra words.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
|
|
Saint
Observer
Posts: 1,111
Member is Online
|
Post by Saint on Sept 4, 2024 23:12:00 GMT
This is how you fix it. Just 5 extra words. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” Probably. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 4, 2024 23:12:22 GMT
It's an old argument. It won't work though. If children getting massacred at school doesn't make any difference then nothing will. They just have to accept 30k firearms deaths a year as the price of freedum. Is it an old argument? It was new to me. I once heard it argued that the 2nd amendment technically gives every American citizen the right to own a nuclear weapon. I don't know what to make of that, either. No, subsequent laws limit access to many different weapons from nuclear weapons to attack helicopters and machine guns. People's rights to bear arms have been infringed many times already. The law is an ass. |
|
Saint
Observer
Posts: 1,111
Member is Online
|
Post by Saint on Sept 4, 2024 23:14:51 GMT
Is it an old argument? It was new to me. I once heard it argued that the 2nd amendment technically gives every American citizen the right to own a nuclear weapon. I don't know what to make of that, either. No, subsequent laws limit access to many different weapons from nuclear weapons to attack helicopters and machine guns. People's rights to bear arms have been infringed many times already. The law is an ass. Yep. I was aware of that. The person who made the point about nuclear weapons was just saying that the wording is wide enough to allow that interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 4, 2024 23:15:54 GMT
This is how you fix it. Just 5 extra words. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” Probably. In polls 70-80% of the population have expressed a willingness to tighten regulations (red flag laws etc) but it takes a super majority in Congress to change the Constitution. It's fucked up and another 4 children paid the price yesterday. |
|
Saint
Observer
Posts: 1,111
Member is Online
|
Post by Saint on Sept 4, 2024 23:17:04 GMT
In polls 70-80% of the population have expressed a willingness to tighten regulations (red flag laws etc) but it takes a super majority in Congress to change the Constitution. It's fucked up and another 4 children paid the price yesterday. What's a super majority? |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Sept 4, 2024 23:25:16 GMT
In polls 70-80% of the population have expressed a willingness to tighten regulations (red flag laws etc) but it takes a super majority in Congress to change the Constitution. It's fucked up and another 4 children paid the price yesterday. What's a super majority? 67%. www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite onerous. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. In modern times, amendments have traditionally specified a time frame in which this must be accomplished, usually a period of several years. Additionally, the Constitution specifies that no amendment can deny a State equal representation in the Senate without that State’s consent. |
|
