Governor Grisham is a fine example of the blatant fascism that exists within the Democratic Party.

@BizSuitStacy Can you imagine how many bullets would be flying around if everyone was walking around with loaded guns? It would be an absolute death zone from coast to coast and from border to border. Remember, not everyone is a sharpshooter and people would be getting shot blocks away from the flare-ups by stray bullets.

@Diotrephes reductio ad absurdum much?

@Graylight Sorry. I forget not everyone reads dusty history books for fun. Most of what is relevant is in the constitutional convention documents and correspondences between the various parties.

The overall idea was to have a (modern) European style conscript army made up of small militias that could be called up when needed. This was important because many of the individuals at the time looked at how in Europe standing armies of the day had a nasty habit of overthrowing the government during peace time. The logic being you can't have a military coup without a standing army.

Eventually the fight to not have a standing army was lost but the amendment intended to create an alternative military framework remained.

There is also bits about fights in the south over wording to maintain the slave patrols so there was also that.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Yes, I get that. I've read the papers and studied Jefferson's ideologies, principles and writing in particular. I read the Constitution the same way you do. However, there are (obviously) different interpretations. There is no time restriction placed on the nation to stop the right to bear arms once a standing army was created. It might've been the intention, but they left no instructions.

It's not about the SCOTUS ignoring or ruling with malice. In fact, It's the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" that's as hotly contested. And it has been since its inception. Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Secondly, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression. It was much more about keeping states' rights from being usurped by the federal government.

A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia. And so that is the standing ruling in the US. Yes, I think it's wrong, I absolutely think we have a conservative panel and that common sense and a basic sense of humanity would halt a problem that's killing so many people. I also think the US Constitution should be revisited and made relevant for today, of which 80% is still perfectly valid.

Disarming this nation - or setting up one single regulation law with teeth - will take far more than a SCOTUS ruling. It would take the majority of the government to do so, and not one single GOP member is going to play that game. They can't even admit Trump's got 91 felony charges against him. And as long as we've got people screaming for their 2nd amendment freedoms while never even intending on touching a gun, there will too much resistance to change. You can see we're not so well-behaved with our leaders.

Even as the GOP disregards and wants to dismantle the Constitution, that's the one single clause they'd keep. For now.

@Graylight

I think we agree on most of it. And I don't actually think a simple change in a ruling will solve much at this point anyway because it is not the biggest issue. But this here is an example of what I mean with the problem of SCOTUS rulings influenced by conflicts of interest.


[quote]A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia. [/quote]

The problem with this is where are they getting this idea that the Second Amendment had anything to do with personal defense or "defending against tyranny of the government" as is often cited.

The only place I have ever seen evidence for this interpretation is NRA literature and relatively recent literature (1960-70s).

If you have a court that is so compromised they can claim a narrative cooked up by a lobby group is historical and rule based on it you have an issue.

I mean this is as much a problem because if this can happen than there is no reason the constitution's wording on declaration of war for example could be interpreted according to Lockheed Martin or environmental policy through the Heartland Foundation.


But the biggest issue ultimately is the bizarre American right wing gun culture that teaches that a gun is a status symbol and a symbol of manhood. That being a man or being strong is determined by how many guns and ammos you have.

And out of that same culture my parents mentioned once it was not till they moved to Colorado that they met people who thought solving personal conflicts with bullets was acceptable behavior.

Up here in Canada we largely see guns as dangerous tools for a specific job. Something you need proper training on like a chop saw.

And since we see guns are largely tools to most Canadians the "right to bear arms" is like obsessing about a right to bear hammers. It is kind of weird on it's face.

@Carla

Carl is triggered! 😭

@Slade define triggered.