General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSomeone finally came out and said it. The PRESIDENT of the U.S. FINALLY came out and said it!
"The Second Amendment is not absolute."
--Joe Biden, May 25, 2022
How many slaughtered school children did it take for THAT to come out of the White House?
Or maybe, it just took a sitting POTUS who is nearing 80 years old to say, "what do they think they can do to me at this point, anyway?"
It's not an inconvenient truth. It's just the truth.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
thomski64
(874 posts)...obsolete
On occasion, I manage to get things right nonetheless.
sanatanadharma
(4,085 posts)"The 2nd amendment is obsolete, not absolute"
calimary
(89,451 posts)
bucolic_frolic
(54,633 posts)“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French political philosopher.
DFW
(59,933 posts)It's time to bust a few of them.
calimary
(89,451 posts)
SheltieLover
(78,828 posts)
AllaN01Bear
(29,058 posts)
thenelm1
(912 posts)And it might also be mentioned that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written all firearms were muzzle loaded, single shot pistols or muskets that were capable of 3, maybe 4, shots a minute depending upon the skill of the person with the weapon, and with smooth bore guns, not particularly accurate beyond 40-50 yards at most. Weapons technology has far outstripped and exceeded the capability of the weapons from that time with the obvious end result. The concept of rapid fire weapons with large clips of ammo was very, very far in the future. The concept of a mass shooting event then consisted of two or more lines of men facing off at 20-30 yards apart and firing volleys at each other en masse. Weapons evolved, the 2nd Amendment not so much.
Cheezoholic
(3,606 posts)like the 18th century's version of the AR-15, cannons. While locally you could stockpile black powder, muskets, cannons they had to be kept in a local state militia armory. If it was discovered farmer Joe had a couple cannons in his barn he got a visit from the federal army.
TomSlick
(12,949 posts)After Heller, there is no question that the 2nd Amendment creates an individual right that is not dependent on participation in a militia - regulated or not. In my humble opinion, the Heller decision rewrites the 2nd Amendment and puts us all in danger. Whatever what the drafters intended, the 2nd Amendment was surely not meant to be a suicide pact.
The only remedy now is a constitutional amendment (which is next to impossible) or a new majority in SCOTUS (which will take years). I hate to be a naysayer, but I am depressed by the whole affair.
I never worried about school shootings when our son was in school. Now I fear for my grandchildren who live in a State which worships firearms.
The NRA and its wholly owned subsidiary, the GOP, have blood on their hands. America needs to rouse itself from its stupor and deal with this - somehow.
ShazzieB
(22,396 posts)F***ing Antonin Scalia and his f***ing orginalism! 
TomSlick
(12,949 posts)
soldierant
(9,305 posts)that at the time the Constitution was written, "bear arms" meant exclusively carrying weapons as part of an army. In 1840 the Tennessee Supreme court laid it out that a hunter of dear, bear, whatever, could carry a gun every day for 40 years and still never have "borne arms." And a couple more examples.
What private gun owners are doing with these weapons is not "bearing arms." To do that, they would need to be in an organized (= well regulated) militia.
The originalists are NOT being true to the original, because they don't have a clue what the "original" was - and in some cases, that is likely not findable. But in this case it is.
See Heather Cox Richardson's "Letters frim an American" on substack. She has some other goodies from history as well.
TomSlick
(12,949 posts)That is due some research.
SunSeeker
(57,987 posts)They are not originalists, just like they are not Christians. They are just looking for excuses for their abhorrent opinions.
soldierant
(9,305 posts)
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)On two parts.
Originalism would require the original Constitution as written before any Amendments were added. That includes what people know as the Bill of Rights.
The original Constitution included a process to amend the Constitution.
sop
(18,085 posts)Scalia must have overlooked the phrase "insure domestic tranquility." The function of government is to ensure that we have peace, calm, and law and order in the country, not gun massacres every other day.
Lonestarblue
(13,363 posts)The Supreme Court completely ignored the words right at the beginning of the amendment, “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." The placement at the beginning would seem to make it important, but the Court ignored that part and focused only on the right of the people to bear arms. The Founders put in a qualifier; the Court took it away. Context matters.
That said, I applaud Biden. I’m only a few years younger than he, but I find that one benefit of getting older is that I care less about what other people think and more about what is right. We cranky oldsters still have a lot to say!
h2ebits
(991 posts)TomSlick
(12,949 posts)Tell me again about Scalia, J. being a textualist.
ShazzieB
(22,396 posts)I'm not sure which is worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
TomSlick
(12,949 posts)are meaningless words. They are just words that conservative judges throw around to justify their positions.
ShazzieB
(22,396 posts)No argument here.
SYFROYH
(34,213 posts)
TomSlick
(12,949 posts)Scalia rewrote the 2nd Amendment to separate the "well regulated militia" bit from the right to bear arms. It was a transparent work of legalistic sophistry.
usaf-vet
(7,779 posts)“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.”
As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read: “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.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
TomSlick
(12,949 posts)A Constitutional amendment is a really heavy lift because too many Americans love guns more than kids.
usaf-vet
(7,779 posts)Caliman73
(11,767 posts)The First Amendment is not absolute, which is why you get in trouble for falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, for libel and slander, or for inciting violence.
The Fourth Amendment is not absolute which is why while you have a right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, you do not have an absolute right against being searched or having your belongings seized. There has to be due process.
The Second Amendment does not prohibit states from enacting laws to ban certain types of firearm. Which is why in California you cannot own auto loading rifles configured with pistol grips and detachable magazines (which precludes AR-15s except those that are basically single shot or fed with stripper clips where you have to break open the rifle to load it). We also have a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds for any firearm. Which is why California, with a higher population, has less gun crime than Texas.
No right should be absolute. There should be room for legislation that seeks to ensure the most freedom for people balanced with protection for the right to life for the most people. It is a balancing act but we should be having those discussions.
70sEraVet
(5,383 posts)once we started deciding that felons can't own firearms.
roamer65
(37,853 posts)☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️
Tucker08087
(622 posts)They say, “The 4th doesn’t give you freedom of privacy to decide if you need an abortion.” And I say, “The second doesn’t mention the word GUN. It says ARMS. So get your fishing knife and that that bow and arrow set your parents got you when you were 12 and you are officially armed. Just make sure to practice every night after work with all your friends and all day Saturday so you are well-regulated, and you should be good to go!” Yes, head explode and lots of hate gets thrown around. Guns are the #1 killer of children in the USA. So ARE they pro-life? Yes, I remind them of that, too. And just when they are fully out of their minds, I leave them with, “If you decide one amendment based on semantics, you endanger ALL of them. The Court will not always be swing Right. Be careful what you wish for.” Then I block their sick asses.
calimary
(89,451 posts)
spanone
(141,258 posts)lame54
(39,364 posts)Chainfire
(17,757 posts)If they fail in that primary duty then they have lost their credibility. Other governments across the world have figured out how to curb gun violence. They have shown us the path, we can see where it leads, but we do not have the will to break away from our cowboy roots. The blood of the children are on all American's hands. We look for parties to blame it on, but as Jimmy told us, " Its our own damn fault." 17,000 victims of gun violence in America including hundreds of children. 33 gun deaths in the UK last year.
AnrothElf
(923 posts)Not rhetorical. Repeal it and pry the guns from their cold dead hands. They asked for it. Give it to them
TomSlick
(12,949 posts)Unfortunately, a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment seems next to impossible. So, please Lord, hear our prayer.
AnrothElf
(923 posts)Might as well make farting sounds and laugh at dead kids. The "Lord" doesn't give a fuck. CANNOT give a fuck. Because it doesn't exist.
Fuck God and fuck the god-botherers. Fuck prayer. Any "Lord" that can permit this bullshit can burn in fucking hell
TomSlick
(12,949 posts)I neither mock nor curse those who do not share my hope out of common courtesy. I am sorry that my mumbled prayer offended.
take away rights from women everything is on the table. take away the frigging guns. WTF AR-15's blowing away children and teachers?????? WTF?? Damn those repigs.
US has more guns than people. That is sick.
IronLionZion
(51,047 posts)The US passed prohibition of alcohol and repealed it.
The very first article has me as 3/5 of a person that was later repealed.
There's an amendment putting in term limits because FDR turned out to be way too popular.
Vinca
(53,636 posts)tossed, it should be okay to examine gun rulings, too.
TomSlick
(12,949 posts)If stare decisis can be ignored to overturn Roe, Heller can also be revisited as wrongly decided. Like most swords, this one cuts both ways.
Martin Eden
(15,488 posts)That bumper sticker is beginning to sound like a great idea.
OverBurn
(1,290 posts)
Beartracks
(14,488 posts)Steve Canuck
(45 posts)From my understanding, the law was updated to include most firearms to the second amendment, a "modernization" if you would.
(Other than the current Supreme Court) what's stopping dems from modernizating the "well regulated militia" part?
Rhiannon12866
(252,916 posts)I've always wondered that when they keep referring to the Second Amendment, saying it gives them "the right to bear arms??"
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.
calimary
(89,451 posts)I’m sure they’d go along with all those regulations being imposed on them for all their guns, ‘eh?
That “well-regulated militia” thing, dontchaknow. It’s right there in the same Constitution that they always like to try to slap us around with! Right in there, in their favorite Second Amendment!
Rhiannon12866
(252,916 posts)Abbott has gotten rid of the regulations regarding gun purchases and ownership, not to mention behavior, and that's what they're happy with! And that's how an angry high school student who just turned 18 managed to purchase automatic weapons! 
Matt Finnish
(6 posts)IMHO the second amendment should be abolished because it is antiquated. It refers to the need for a regulated militia, which was necessary because the militia served as the reserves of our standing army. We now have the army national guard, the air national guard and the army reserves. The need for a regulated militia is a moot point.
Rhiannon12866
(252,916 posts)That's why I find it baffling that those who support abolishing regulations on guns keep referring to it!
Aussie105
(7,745 posts)In fact, it's a badly worded statement that only had value when applied at one point in time in American history.
And that time went away long ago.
Time for that amendment to go too.
It can be easily deleted or updated.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,642 posts)All it takes is another amendment to override it.
From Google:
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.
Easy? I don't think so.
Magoo48
(6,712 posts)living document, our constitution, and thousands of Americans every year.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,482 posts)belligerently ignorant fools, things will only continue to get worse in this country.
Marthe48
(22,911 posts)We can't regulate people. Regulate the GD guns. How about if you want to own a gun, minimum 2 years compulsory public service, in situations that deal with all kinds of people. If you complete the 2 years, then you can get a background check. If you get a clean background check at least 2 years in a row, as an adult, then you can get a license and buy a gd gun. If you can't wait to kill somebody, maybe a long, drawn-out process will cool off that trigger finger.
Oppaloopa
(944 posts)Seinan Sensei
(1,471 posts)So say Republican firearm nut-jobs
So let me get this straight.
They say: Use retired police/ retired military who, presumably, have been trained ( "well-regulated" ) to guard our school-kids
They DO NOT say: Allow Rittenhouse-style Incel/ teenie-wienie/ wanna-be's who own an AK-whatever to guard our school-kids
So ...
Let every Texan open-carry
... except at Texas schools?
... except at Houston NRA conventions?
... except at the Texas statehouse in Austin?
azureblue
(2,707 posts)They ignore the first part about belonging to a well regulated militia. If it was absolute, then every gun owner would have to serve in at least the National Guard.. So make then choose - either they all join the NG, and serve, doing periodic week end active duties, disaster call ups, etc., or they scrap the 2nd. Pick one.