Time to overturn Heller and use the originalist view of the 2nd Amendment

[Marius25]

The only guns allowed are Muskets, and you must sign up with your state militia if you want to own one.

That's what the Founders intended.

Just a reminder: John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy decided a well-regulated militia is not necessary to own any gun you want.

[Nictuku]

1. Amen!

Or, YESS!!!! (I'm not actually a Christian, so not sure if I can use Amen) But I have long held this view. Heller is the problem.

[Celerity]

4. Amen is ancient Abrahamic Hebrew. It is used by multiple religions, including Islam, Judaism,

Christianity, etc.

Secular/atheistic people use it too at times.

[AZ8theist]

25. As a militant atheist, I never use the word.

I also never say "bless you" when someone sneezes, after learning the origin of the phrase.

As well, I always say "Thank Koresh", anytime the phrase "thank god" comes up.

Like I said, I'm militant.

[lambchopp59]

28. Ah, men!

Oh. Was that not the connotation that... mmm... never mind.

[Celerity]

32. I am an absolute atheist myself. I do not use it either.

[CTyankee]

35. Here, hear!!!

Dunno which one is appropriate but I think it is a British saying....

[ShazzieB]

36. Do you ever get any weird reactions?

Just curious, because my first association with the word "koresh" was David Koresh, which carries some very negative connotations. I know it has other meanings, but I'm not sure what it means as you're using it, and I have a feeling most people wouldn't.

[AZ8theist]

68. Yes, it references David Koresh.

Because Koresh, like thousands before him, anointed themselves the next "messiah"...
What makes him any different from any other self-proclaimed god?
He was a pervert and a pedophile. A deluded narcissist who convinced his followers to die by burning to death fighting an imaginary foe.
Good fucking riddance. THANK KORESH we are still here after your clownish idiocy is gone and (mostly) forgotten.

And yes, I do get reactions. Mostly from family and friends that know me and they laugh. Because they see the absurdity of it.*
The whole concept of "prophets", or self-appointed "messengers of god" is LAUGHABLE to me. It is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

I will go to my grave insulting and mocking every single one of them.

(* That being said, I do not spend time in Alabama or other parts of the bible belt, so reactions there could be quite different)

[ShazzieB]

75. Ask I get it now!

Laughed a little, too.

[Stardust Mirror]

58. R'Amen

Yah Pastafari

[AZ8theist]

69. HAIL his noodly appendage!!

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

73. I use Salud

Learned it from a Hispanic friend of my ex-husband's. He also used it for "cheers!" when drinking as well.

Useful little word, and not at all religious.

[Backseat Driver]

31. Say, "Selah" thereafter -- nobody knows its exact meaning;

perhaps, "rock it, baby" Oops, guess not...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selah

..."a word used 74 times in the Hebrew Bible. Its etymology and precise meaning are unknown, though various interpretations are given.

It is probably either a liturgical-musical mark or an instruction on the reading of the text, with the meaning of "stop and listen." Another proposal is that selah can be used to indicate that there is to be a musical interlude at that point in the Psalm.[1] It can also be interpreted as a form of underlining in preparation for the next paragraph.

It should not be confused with the Hebrew word sela' (סֶלַע meaning "rock".

[soldierant]

33. in the Gospels it if often ranslated as "Verily" which of course

mean "truly," truthfully," "And tha's the truth," "What you said," and you can probably think of many other expressionss. But as far as I am concerned you are welcome to "Amen." The only reason it has any religious connotation is that it comes from a language used by a people who strongy identified with their reigion,. It's not like "allelujah," which does allude to God. ("Hosanna" also alludes to God, but not in the way people, at least most people who speak English, use it today.)

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Yes

[GuppyGal]

3. What's going on now is CLEARLY NOT WORKING.

[allegorical oracle]

5. SCOTUS only becomes 18th Century originalists when it comes to birthing babies. n/t

[lastlib]

26. And even then, they go back to the 1600s and the guy that hunted witches.....

He's their authority? Effin' Ri-DICULOUS!

[roamer65]

6. Secession of the blue states gets rid of that pesky 2nd Amendment.

The time is drawing closer and closer.

[Marius25]

9. I would support that as well.

It's unlikely and logistically extremely difficult, but at least we could join the rest of the developed world and let Red states rot (after we help Dems leave them).

[roamer65]

11. It's more likely than we think.

The catalyst for it could very well be November 2024.

[Nictuku]

13. I don't want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment

... Heller just interpreted it wrong, ignoring part of the sentence.

[jimfields33]

15. Red states say the same for different reasons but get negative reaction

I’m not sure blue states wanting to leave would have majority support.

[TwilightZone]

18. There is no right of secession.

That was decided in 1869.

Besides, it's just as dumb an idea for "blue" states as "red" ones. Most of them are actually purple, for one.

[roamer65]

20. That SCOTUS decision can be overturned.

Just like Roe.

Just takes the right case to do it.

Like Jefferson said, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish government.

[TwilightZone]

52. Jefferson's not around anymore.

And the current situation is quite certainly not what he had in mind, nor is much of what he intended applicable anymore.

Regardless, the entire idea of secession is no less idiotic when it's "our" idea than when it comes from the right. The vast majority of states are purple. You planning on moving 100+ million people around to fix that?

In everyone's favorite punching ground, Texas, for example, Biden got more than 46% of the vote. You think more than 10 million people are just going to leave their homes and move to Massachusetts?

[roamer65]

53. How do you know what he had in his mind?

Are you a mind reader?

I am quoting what he said, which is what was on his mind at the time.

[ShazzieB]

54. Secession is not a solution to anything,

Among other things, it would be wildly impractical due to geography. The red and blue states aren't arranged on the map in one neat contiguous block, like the Confederate states were. They're all over the place!

The map shifts a little with each election, but basically there's a cluster of blue states in the northeast, another cluster on the west coast, and a few in the upper Midwest. Depending on which election's map you're looking at, Georgia is a blue island in a sea of red (or not), and Wisconsin is a red island surrounded by blue Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota (or not). And I haven't even mentioned Colorado and New Mexico.

Take a look at these maps to see what I mean: https://www.270towin.com/content/blue-and-red-states

How the heck are you going to create one coherent country out of multiple scattered groups of blue states, with hundreds of miles of red separating them from each other? It won't work, and that's just one of the reasons why it won't.

I'm not a fan of the second amendment, but it's one amendment in the whole Constitution. Hard as it would be to change or repeal that amendment, it would be orders of magnitude harder to get a whole bunch of states to secede and then herd all of those cats into one united whole and iron out all the complexities of setting up a brand new country.

[roamer65]

56. Sure it does.

It gets a state or region out of the constitutional paralysis we are now facing. The paralysis will get worse as polarization in the United States increases.

As John F Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”

This is where we are heading if change does not happen.

[ShazzieB]

66. I see you totally (and conveniently) ignored the practicalities I pointed out.

Go ahead and keep dreaming. You are absolutely welcome to believe in and pursue the possibility of secession if you like. I hope you don't put all your eggs in that basket, because I think it's vanushly unlikely to ever happen. I'm not going to try to change your mind, and you're not going to change my mind either.

Since you didn't respond to the points I raised, I'm going to refrain from elaborating further on why I think secession is a bad idea. I will, however, leave some links here, for anyone who might be interested.

US secession is a great idea — for Russia
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3869319-us-secession-is-a-great-idea-for-russia/

So you want to secede from the U.S.: A four-step guide
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/27/so-you-want-to-secede-from-the-u-s-a-four-step-guide/

Sorry White House Petitioners, There's No Way To Secede From The United States
https://www.businessinsider.com/no-you-cannot-secede-from-the-united-states-2012-118

[roamer65]

67. I agree we disagree.

Let’s see what the future brings.

[ShazzieB]

76. Okay by me!

[TexasDem69]

63. Secession

Is for traitors. The US fought that fight already.

[roamer65]

64. I definitely don't care what people in Texas think on the issue.

I would only respect Michiganders opinions on the issue via a referendum.

Texas telling Michigan not to secede would be like a divorced person telling another person not to get a divorce.

[LonePirate]

7. I much prefer repealing the 2A completely but we can start with this incremental step.

[Mister Ed]

8. Or simply stop ignoring the first half of the Second Amendment.

The part that explained that the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that the Militia remained prepared. (And no, "militia" at that time did not mean a bunch of beer-bellied bigots cavorting in camo.)

[Nictuku]

14. Here here!

[former9thward]

19. What did militia mean then?

[AZ8theist]

27. Basically militias were needed to hunt down runaway slaves.

[Mister Ed]

30. A force organized, armed, and disciplined by Congress, and under control of state governments.

The year before the US Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the founders' paramount vision of the militia in 1787.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to "organize, arm, and discipline" this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

At that time, the U.S. had scarcely any standing army at all, so it's easy to understand the importance of military reserves on which the federal and state governments could draw.

For the first 170 or so years of the Republic, this meaning was understood and respected. Since then, the ink with which the "militia clause" was written appears to have (metaphorically) faded to the point where it is invisible to those who wish to believe that the framers intended the Second Amendment to be a guarantee that any weapon of any kind could be carried anywhere by anyone at any time.

[former9thward]

37. Except there was none.

The so-called Reserves or National Guard did not exist until the 1880s. A hundred years after the Constitution was ratified. Congress said the militia was all white males between 18-45.

https://constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

So although you mocked "a bunch of beer-bellied bigots cavorting in camo" that in fact was the militia.

[Mister Ed]

41. ??

I've carefully read the Militia Act of 1792 to which you've linked. It authorizes the President to call out the militia. I can find nothing in it to indicate that there was no militia for the President to call out.

You greatly misunderstand me if you think I mock any people or organizations that existed centuries ago. The "beer-bellied bigots cavorting in camo" are people who are with us here and now, who gather in ragtag groups and call themselves "militia" in order to cloak themselves in the mantle of Constitutional authority.

[former9thward]

47. There was in effect no real militia.

Congress has shaped the modern militia's structure by exercising its Article I militia powers through a series of statutes. The first such legislation was the Militia Act of 1792. This act codified the traditional view of the militia as consisting of all able- bodied citizens. It also required each militiaman to supply his own arms. However, since the federal government provided no funding, the states gradually allowed their militias to deteriorate. By the 1870s, the militias in most states were little more than social clubs centered on a yearly parade.

In 1903, Congress attempted to restore the usefulness of the state militias with the Dick Act. This act marked the beginning of the federalization of the militia. The Dick Act also split the militia into two branches: the organized militia, which became known as the National Guard, and the unorganized militia. The act provided federal funds for equipment and training, required drill a specified number of days each year, and gave federal inspectors the right to review state militia practices. Congress continued the federalization of the National Guard through numerous subsequent acts. The result today is that the National Guard is a reserve force of the United States Army under significant federal control.

Though the division of the militia into organized and unorganized branches still exists today, Congress has not explicitly defined the role of the unorganized militia. Nevertheless, federal statutes do provide for civilian firearms training as part of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Although legislators have attacked the program as being outdated, it has survived Congressional debates as recently as June 1994. At least one senator has argued that the program continues to add to the nation's defense capability. Additionally, a United States Army study found that individuals who received training in the program were significantly more effective in combat than those without such training. However, although Congress explicitly created a dual- militia system, the unorganized militias of the various states have remained largely dormant.

https://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/8military/milita01.htm

[Mister Ed]

51. Got it.

1) Back when the Militia Act of 1792 was passed to authorize the President to call out the militia, there wasn't really a militia for the President to call out. So Congress was just kidding. Or something.

2) Any criticism of present-day yahoos who hang out together and call themselves a "militia" is really disrespectful criticism of those valiant late-18th-century militiamen who served in the militia that didn't exist.

I think I need a drink...

[Mister Ed]

61. When you have no argument, resort to insults.

Oh, and by the way? This is a really, really bad night to be pushing bullshit theories about the Founders' understanding of the definition of the term "militia".
https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17889914

[Major Nikon]

45. Nonsense

Even before there was a USA local militias were organized by governmental entities. People were recruited and/or conscripted, signed up, and were organized into various units. Even before the Constitution all states were "required to keep ready, a well-trained, disciplined, and equipped militia" by the Articles of Confederation. It wasn't groups of gravy seals playing army out in the woods without the approval and direction of the state.

[former9thward]

48. Nonsense.

There was no funding for any militia.

Congress has shaped the modern militia's structure by exercising itsArticle I militia powers through a series of statutes. The first such legislation was the Militia Act of 1792. This act codified the traditional view of the militia as consisting of all able- bodied citizens. It also required each militiaman to supply his own arms. However, since the federal government provided no funding, the states gradually allowed their militias to deteriorate. By the 1870s, the militias in most states were little more than social clubs centered on a yearly parade.

In 1903, Congress attempted to restore the usefulness of the state militias with the Dick Act. This act marked the beginning of the federalization of the militia. The Dick Act also split the militia into two branches: the organized militia, which became known as the National Guard, and the unorganized militia. The act provided federal funds for equipment and training, required drill a specified number of days each year, and gave federal inspectors the right to review state militia practices. Congress continued the federalization of the National Guard through numerous subsequent acts. The result today is that the National Guard is a reserve force of the United States Army under significant federal control.

Though the division of the militia into organized and unorganized branches still exists today, Congress has not explicitly defined the role of the unorganized militia. Nevertheless, federal statutes do provide for civilian firearms training as part of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Although legislators have attacked the program as being outdated, it has survived Congressional debates as recently as June 1994. At least one senator has argued that the program continues to add to the nation's defense capability. Additionally, a United States Army study found that individuals who received training in the program were significantly more effective in combat than those without such training. However, although Congress explicitly created a dual- militia system, the unorganized militias of the various states have remained largely dormant.






https://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/8military/milita01.htm

[Major Nikon]

57. Why is it starting to sound like the gungeon all of the sudden?

There was no federal funding of militias because the states were expected to do so themselves and they did. Organized militias were in existence in pretty much all British colonies well before 1776. Males falling into the age of conscription were considered the unorganized militia if they weren't part of the organized militia. Which one do you think they were talking about when they specifically wrote, "A well regulated Militia"?

Citing things that have nothing to do with your assertion isn't helping your case one bit. They were specifically talking about well regulated state militias which sure as shit did exist at the time no matter how you want to pretend they didn't. While they may have been poorly funded, they were still organized locally into units with officers and soldiers. The idea they were no different than beer bellied gravy seal types is worthy of a chuckle, but not much more.

[former9thward]

60. I notice you cite nothing to back up your statements.

I don't wonder why.

[dflprincess]

62. If I recall, and I am fuzzy on the details

the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794) would be an example of how the militias were suppose to operate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Throughout Western Pennsylvania counties, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a US marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. Most distillers in nearby Kentucky were found to be all but impossible to tax—in the next six years, over 175 distillers from Kentucky were convicted of violating the tax law.[4] Numerous examples of resistance are recorded in court documents and newspaper accounts.[5]

[Major Nikon]

72. Back then there were little to no LEOs

Local militias were organized for the common defense, but they were also used in law enforcement operations both large and small.

[Rhiannon12866]

22. +100

[AZ8theist]

29. ESPECIALLY the "well regulated" part....

[dchill]

39. Someone tell SCOTUS. Explain it SLOWLY.

[roamer65]

21. Under our present constitutional structure, you will never get ratification of a repeal.

It takes 38 states.

[allegorical oracle]

44. Agree. The only way gun-loving legislators and Congress idiots will take action on this crisis is

if they get hit in the wallet by the big business/franchise owners who will start howling that they're losing customers because people are growing afraid to shop or attend bars, restaurants and theaters. Many are sinking into bankruptcy, anyway, and closing locations. These mass shootings will have a further impact.

[roamer65]

50. Get the insurance companies to escalate liability premiums on businesses that sell ammo.

Drive them out of the biz.

[Hortensis]

10. :) Sure, and what better time than now?

Actually, I don't put a really great deal of dependence on our supposedly "originalist" extremists' intellectual judicial consistency. None, actually, either the intellectual part or the judicial consistency part.

But I'm fine with irritating them. if this argument fails, we can always try something else next week.

[Silent3]

12. It might be time for us, but it's not time for this SCOTUS

We're stuck until we have the political will to "pack the court", or until a bunch of the extremist Justices resign or die. We sure as hell won't pull off any impeachments, no matter how justly deserved, any time soon either.

[usonian]

16. Broad interpretation of the 2nd. amendment contradicts the preamble to the Constitution:

To ensure domestic tranquility.

Lawyers! comfortable with contradiction because in every criminal case, they are wrong 50% of the time.
Physicists aim higher.

BTW, anti-abortion laws violate religious freedom, because they impose one religion's view on others who don't hold it.

"Contradiction please".

[dlk]

17. Republicans think liability insurance for gun owners is tyranny

Better taxpayers bear the cost of gun violence.

[dchill]

40. "The cost of freedom."

[dlk]

65. In reality, they're nothing more than entitled free lunchers

We’re living with tyranny disguised as freedom.

[NickB79]

46. Except insurance generally doesn't pay out in cases of violent crime

Most liability policies cover unintentional acts, ie accidents.

There isn't an insurance policy in existence that would pay out if a gun owner used their firearm to shoot another person.

That's why gun insurance policies already sold by the NRA are dirt cheap.

[roamer65]

23. Get the insurance companies to start escalating premiums on any business that sells ammunition.

A gun is useless without ammunition and businesses require liability insurance.

[WmChris]

24. You, becha!

I wholeheartedly agree because aren't these so called justice's supposedly origalist.

[Takket]

34. SCOTUS is more likely to ban baseball and apple pie

Not that i disagree with you, but guns are here to stay.

[3catwoman3]

38. As to "Amen," when I was about 8, I once asked...

…my mother, when saying bedtime prayers, if we couldn’t please say “Ah, ladies” sometimes instead of “Ah, men.”

A feminist from an early age.

Bedtime prayers became a thing of the past no too long after that, IIRC.

[johnp3907]

43. You were a cool kid!

[Ligyron]

42. With the appointment of Boof Boy, Handmaid, Gorsucks, etc this court has no legitimacy.

None whatsoever...

... and then throw in Mr. Graft himself, a very confused black man named Thomas and Mc Turtle's theft of Obama's vacancy that would have been filled by a sane person and no one need abide by any of their rulings, imho.

Almost no measure would be too extreme if it took back our SCOTUS and restored it's legitimacy, imho.

[enid602]

49. 2nd Amendment

The Second Amendment was demanded by Southern whites, as a massive and successful slave uprising had just taken place in Haiti. They wanted to protect themselves from blacks.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

74. Wrong

The slave uprising in Haiti began on 24 August 1791. It didn't succeed until 1 January 1804.

James Madison submitted a proposed Bill of Rights in 1789. It consisted of 19 Amendments, including the 10 that would later get ratified. The House approved 17 of them, and the Senate whittled the list down to 12 by 25 September 1789. In October, Washington submitted the 12 Amendments to the states for ratification. The states ratified ten of them, and they became law on 15 December 1791.

The Amendments did not change in wording between October 1789 and December 1791.

So, no, the Second Amendment was not based on a Haitian revolution two years in the future that wouldn't prove successful for another 12 years. That's just nonsense.

[enid602]

77. wrong?

Note the source and the date on the article. Link:

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment

[sarisataka]

80. The article doesn't change the fact

That the current wording of the Amendment was finalized nearly two years prior to the start of the Haitian Revolution.

[Martin68]

55. I agree 100% on the well-regulated military clause. I suggest the for the sake of accuracy and

consistency that "muskets" were most definitely not part of the definition. Kentucky rifles, Pennsylvania rifles and other colonial rifled firearms were an advantage we had over the redcoats because our long rifles were far more accurate than smooth-bored muskets. I have in my possession the Revolutionary War Pennsylvania rifle that my ancestor, Captain Charles Johnson, carried onto the battlefield in that war. It is not a musket.

[drmeow]

70. if we MUST have this level

of gun violence in our country (which we should not), I've got a list of some people who I WISH would be the victims instead of innocent everyday residents or visitors. I mean, if some people just HAVE to die, why not a twofer and make the world a better place. The added bonus is that it would not take long for the level of gun violence to go down once the list gets short enough.

[LiberalFighter]

71. They call themselves orginalists. Yet don't follow it.

[SYFROYH]

78. I'm not so sure your view is what the Founders intended.

John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy said that regulations and restrictions were permissible in Heller.

[newdayneeded]

79. I agree, to the point that something

needs to be done to more clearly state what the 2nd ammendment means.

But, the bad part is, the train left the station. 400 million guns on the street. there's no policing that!