Or so long as they don't negate rights from the Bill of Rights.....small things like thatAmendments and updating are fine, so long as they reflect my opinion.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or so long as they don't negate rights from the Bill of Rights.....small things like thatAmendments and updating are fine, so long as they reflect my opinion.
Slow down a second..
That's not what I was saying. What I was talking about is not opinion but government legislated speech control.. In Canada it is a crime to misgender (to call a biological man a man if he believes (fantasy) he is a woman is an example) So if you don't follow what he believes about himself to be true and say so it is crime in Canada... Hate speech which is pretty loosely defined is a crime.. I am not advocating for the thought police quite the opposite..
If 1A-9A pertained to states rights then she "might" have an argument. But since they don't....You can still read the 2A to cover a "regulated state militia" that is not the US Armed Forces coopted National Guard. But such things no longer exist - hence Ginsburg's view that 2A has no present practical effect. It's an interestingly literalist, time-locked view of the amendment from her - maybe Ginsburg learned something from her years of friendship with Scalia
In the face of objectively unclear language of the 2A it is fair for someone to take your read (which is also my read and Heller's read), but to say in it's entirety that the 2A "could not be clearer" is simply ridiculous. Any first year law student that wrote that sentence and pretended it was clear would get an F for horrible use of the English language. It is not clear, and given some of the twisting and turning and back room nuance by Adams around the Bill of Rights it is possible it was purposely unclear to gain support of opposing side who both read in their own meaning.Whether the reason for 2A is clear or not, i.e. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” the limitation placed on the newly formed federal government itself could not be clearer: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
There is no intentional structure to the order of the Bill of Rights. Of all the personal 2A rationales, this is one of the weakest.If 1A-9A pertained to states rights then she "might" have an argument. But since they don't....
I just wanted to bold this so some of you younger folks might not miss what an experienced, educated, well traveled lady knows to be true. She is very wise and we should pay attention.The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ::: this is my concern and I have mentioned it before.
Those wanting to take away our firearms will do it "piece-meal" one step at a time until all each of us have is one rifle and one shotgun and one box of ammo for each. AND they will say they have NOT taken away your right to keep and bear arms. I will be gone soon but you younger ladies and gentlemen must fight every single attempt to change the gun laws. IMHO they are doing it to reduce ownership and to know who has what--and they will do it one step at a time.
Slow down a second..
That's not what I was saying. What I was talking about is not opinion but government legislated speech control.. In Canada it is a crime to misgender (to call a biological man a man if he believes (fantasy) he is a woman is an example) So if you don't follow what he believes about himself to be true and say so it is crime in Canada... Hate speech which is pretty loosely defined is a crime.. I am not advocating for the thought police quite the opposite..
You can still read the 2A to cover a "regulated state militia" that is not the US Armed Forces coopted National Guard. But such things no longer exist - hence Ginsburg's view that 2A has no present practical effect. It's an interestingly literalist, time-locked view of the amendment from her - maybe Ginsburg learned something from her years of friendship with Scalia
Let's also make sure the younger folks don't miss the fact that you are highlighting her text not at all because she is experience, educated, well-travelled and wise (all of which she undoubtably is), but simply because she agreed with you. There are others on this forum and in other walks of life with similar attributes but would take the opposite position - some how I don't expect you to trumpet their view just on their personal merits.I just wanted to bold this so some of you younger folks might not miss what an experienced, educated, well traveled lady knows to be true. She is very wise and we should pay attention.
Another reasonable reading. Countries such as Switzerland actually require able bodies male citizens to maintain possession of a working firearm under just such a rationale. Some states required that pre-constitution. One delegation tried to insert it but couldn't get the votes.To get back on track of the post. I've been thinking quit a bit on one of your ( @VikingsGuy ) earlier comments regarding the interpretation of the 2A. It's way to far back to link it now but, I can see where interpretation can lean toward different understandings. That fact is evident today with all the he said she said and misquoting going on.
Most counties, if not all have a plan to call up the militia if needed. Probably by state law. But it occurs to me that a called on militia is not much good if they don't have firearms or supplies to shoot the firearm. And most states don't have a surplus laying around of weapons and ammo to support this type of event. So, either way you interpret it, shouldn't it include the right to keep and maintain firearms for citizens? It occurs to me, as I have stated before, there is a sytematic approach to removing firearms indirectly through restrictions. IMO...
To get back on track of the post. I've been thinking quit a bit on one of your ( @VikingsGuy ) earlier comments regarding the interpretation of the 2A. It's way to far back to link it now but, I can see where interpretation can lean toward different understandings. That fact is evident today with all the he said she said and misquoting going on.
Most counties, if not all have a plan to call up the militia if needed. Probably by state law. But it occurs to me that a called on militia is not much good if they don't have firearms or supplies to shoot the firearm. And most states don't have a surplus laying around of weapons and ammo to support this type of event. So, either way you interpret it, shouldn't it include the right to keep and maintain firearms for citizens? It occurs to me, as I have stated before, there is a sytematic approach to removing firearms indirectly through restrictions. IMO...
Another reasonable reading. Countries such as Switzerland actually require able bodies male citizens to maintain possession of a working firearm under just such a rationale. Some states required that pre-constitution. One delegation tried to insert it but couldn't get the votes.
But to the point, their is not one magic simple reading of this horribly drafted amendment, so our constiution and 200+ years of social contract require us to defer to SCOTUS for the final answer. And today Heller is the final answer. And frankly Heller will be gone much sooner than our public lands will be.
The personal right to bear arms - a right I totally support - is only a decade old and is already on life support. Focusing on "it's clear", "the Founders meant it", "out of my cold dead hands", "worry about public lands first because guns are secure" are not going to preserve it. We need to update our thinking, our communications and our willingness to find shared wins or it will be gone before my son can inherit my guns.
Gawd! What’s July going to bring us?
Gawd! What’s July going to bring us?
Sooo... #438 post:
We are collectively opposed to <HT Censored Political Party> Candidate for President, Joe "McGaff" Biden's declared intent to ban online ammunition sales.
Have we solved world peace yet?
The Saharan dust storm will bring with it a new species of Africanized giant lizard that views humans as crickets