The thing about the NRA and especially of GOA is that both seem to have it backwards. The elevation of a weapon of war comes before the 2nd Amendment, rather than the 2nd Amendment determining the role guns should play in society. Scalia’s unprecedented interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in D.C. v. Heller was itself nonsense, to be clear, but it still implied some limits on guns. That is not the case for the NRA or GOA.
The Onion satirizes repeated tragedies at different scales because these people literally worship the gun as a gun. From my perspective, the 2nd Amendment citations are empty expressions to constitutionality and tropes of death.
But I know that most Americans favor more gun control. So, obviously, I’m only talking about the members of GOA and the more hardline members of NRA.
he elevation of a weapon of war comes before the 2nd Amendment, rather than the 2nd Amendment determining the role guns should play in society.
I am not sure I understand your statement. The 2nd amendment is all about weapons of war. The purpose of the 2nd is to ensure the citizens have access to weapons of war to form militias.
Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.
The Collectivist View:
On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
That view was the precedent for seven decades before Scalia came along and imposed upon us the individual right theory. Neither view says the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure citizens have access to weapons of war to form militias, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. But the first view only prohibit laws against owning guns.
But like…why should domestic abusers, who routinely hurt and kill women and children mostly, be able to own a gun?
And why do Stand Your Ground laws exist? It makes sense that you wouldn’t have a duty to retreat in your own home. That’s the Castle Doctrine. But to extend that “right” to self-defense in public? The 2nd Amendment, gun owners say, supports the intrusion of violence in to the public sphere by regular, often scared civilians. It just makes society worse.
And that’s what I mean when I say the elevation of a weapon or war comes before the 2nd Amendment: regardless of the effect on society, of which there are literally piles of bodies that attest to the devastation of the firearm, rules and regulations on them are fiercely opposed ine very instance. It’s a principle without grounding, a belief that needs no evidence, basically, an ideology.
Neither view says the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure citizens have access to weapons of war to form militias, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from
I am getting that from the 2nd amendment and the previous court cases. I am not sure where you are getting your theories from since what the NRA or GOA thinks, isn’t relevant compared to the Supreme court.
On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The “double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230,” was never used in any militia organization.
Point 3 is exactly where I got my statement from.
Are you not familiar with Miller, where weapons of war were the standard used? Based on Miller, a hunting weapon could be banned but an AR-15 could not since it is appropriate for an armed milita.
Stand your ground has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is a law about self-defense. It says I have the right to defend myself from harm and I don’t have to flee to do so.
Don’t confuse it with the 2nd amendment as the two have nothing to do with each other.
Stand your ground has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is a law about self-defense. It says I have the right to defend myself from harm and I don’t have to flee to do so.
That…is bizarre to me, but sure, I see your point.
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
Right, and the collectivist view also required using a military-type weapon in a state-sanctioned militia. the fourth argument.
In any case, the 2nd Amendment ensured the efficacy of state militarities at the time when the U.S. didn’t have a standing army. We have a standing army now. Whatever the interpretation, it’s an outdated amendment.
4th isn’t requiring the weapon to be used in a militia. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The court clearly explains that a sawed off shotgun was not used in a militia, as an explanation of why it’s not protected by the 2nd. Basically militias had never issued them before (later; it was brought up this was incorrect and sawed off shotguns were used in ww1). It doesn’t require the use in a militia but that it’s a weapon of war.
We’ve had a standing army for most of our history which is why we have the 2nd. It’s to keep the army in check. The founding fathers were very clear as to the purpose the 2nd.
The thing about the NRA and especially of GOA is that both seem to have it backwards. The elevation of a weapon of war comes before the 2nd Amendment, rather than the 2nd Amendment determining the role guns should play in society
How so is it backwards for them to advocate for our rights?
Because regardless of the copious innocent deaths and superfluous destruction the object of their advocacy wreaks, they still lift up that right in every circumstance. Their principled stand for gun ownership is completely removed from reality. Neither the NRA nor the GOA are pragmatic, which would mean traingulating between the injurious realities of firearm ownership and the limits Scalia has referenced. Instead, it’s guns, everywhere, all the time.
Rights are only useful if they can be exercised. Between mass shootings, an epidemic of domestic violence, and just casual violence over football games and road rage incidencts, I’m hardpressed to see how they’re firearm advocacy as “protective” of anything. Dead people have no need of rights because they can’t use them.
The fact that you’re literally sitting here calling it “backwards” to act in accordance with principles. Having a hard time keeping up with the bullshit you peddle?
The thing about the NRA and especially of GOA is that both seem to have it backwards. The elevation of a weapon of war comes before the 2nd Amendment, rather than the 2nd Amendment determining the role guns should play in society. Scalia’s unprecedented interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in D.C. v. Heller was itself nonsense, to be clear, but it still implied some limits on guns. That is not the case for the NRA or GOA.
The Onion satirizes repeated tragedies at different scales because these people literally worship the gun as a gun. From my perspective, the 2nd Amendment citations are empty expressions to constitutionality and tropes of death.
But I know that most Americans favor more gun control. So, obviously, I’m only talking about the members of GOA and the more hardline members of NRA.
I am not sure I understand your statement. The 2nd amendment is all about weapons of war. The purpose of the 2nd is to ensure the citizens have access to weapons of war to form militias.
The view of the GOA and NRA is called the individual rights theory:
The Collectivist View:
That view was the precedent for seven decades before Scalia came along and imposed upon us the individual right theory. Neither view says the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure citizens have access to weapons of war to form militias, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. But the first view only prohibit laws against owning guns.
But like…why should domestic abusers, who routinely hurt and kill women and children mostly, be able to own a gun?
And why do Stand Your Ground laws exist? It makes sense that you wouldn’t have a duty to retreat in your own home. That’s the Castle Doctrine. But to extend that “right” to self-defense in public? The 2nd Amendment, gun owners say, supports the intrusion of violence in to the public sphere by regular, often scared civilians. It just makes society worse.
And that’s what I mean when I say the elevation of a weapon or war comes before the 2nd Amendment: regardless of the effect on society, of which there are literally piles of bodies that attest to the devastation of the firearm, rules and regulations on them are fiercely opposed ine very instance. It’s a principle without grounding, a belief that needs no evidence, basically, an ideology.
I am getting that from the 2nd amendment and the previous court cases. I am not sure where you are getting your theories from since what the NRA or GOA thinks, isn’t relevant compared to the Supreme court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
Point 3 is exactly where I got my statement from.
Are you not familiar with Miller, where weapons of war were the standard used? Based on Miller, a hunting weapon could be banned but an AR-15 could not since it is appropriate for an armed milita.
Stand your ground has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is a law about self-defense. It says I have the right to defend myself from harm and I don’t have to flee to do so.
Don’t confuse it with the 2nd amendment as the two have nothing to do with each other.
That…is bizarre to me, but sure, I see your point.
Right, and the collectivist view also required using a military-type weapon in a state-sanctioned militia. the fourth argument.
In any case, the 2nd Amendment ensured the efficacy of state militarities at the time when the U.S. didn’t have a standing army. We have a standing army now. Whatever the interpretation, it’s an outdated amendment.
4th isn’t requiring the weapon to be used in a militia. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The court clearly explains that a sawed off shotgun was not used in a militia, as an explanation of why it’s not protected by the 2nd. Basically militias had never issued them before (later; it was brought up this was incorrect and sawed off shotguns were used in ww1). It doesn’t require the use in a militia but that it’s a weapon of war.
We’ve had a standing army for most of our history which is why we have the 2nd. It’s to keep the army in check. The founding fathers were very clear as to the purpose the 2nd.
How so is it backwards for them to advocate for our rights?
Because regardless of the copious innocent deaths and superfluous destruction the object of their advocacy wreaks, they still lift up that right in every circumstance. Their principled stand for gun ownership is completely removed from reality. Neither the NRA nor the GOA are pragmatic, which would mean traingulating between the injurious realities of firearm ownership and the limits Scalia has referenced. Instead, it’s guns, everywhere, all the time.
Rights are only useful if they can be exercised. Between mass shootings, an epidemic of domestic violence, and just casual violence over football games and road rage incidencts, I’m hardpressed to see how they’re firearm advocacy as “protective” of anything. Dead people have no need of rights because they can’t use them.
Yeah, I guess it checks out that you think it’s weird for people to have principles, since the concept is entirely foreign to you
What do you know of my principles or lack thereof?
The fact that you’re literally sitting here calling it “backwards” to act in accordance with principles. Having a hard time keeping up with the bullshit you peddle?
Removed by mod
What the fuck are you on about
Removed by mod