Supreme Court Allows the Texas Abortion Law to Remain. California Governor Newsom Plans to Draft a Similar Law to Control Assault Weapons/Ghost Guns

@redredred Which well regulated militia do you belong to, in accordance with 10% of the Bill of Rights?

@windinhishair Read it again carefully. There are two groups mentioned in the amendment, the Militia which can be regulated and the People whose rights regarding keeping and bearing arms which shall not be infringed.

Regulate the militia all you want but we the people possess rights that shall not be infringed.

@redredred Excellent point!

@redredred If it benefits people, it can be added to the constitution. People act like the needs of society doesn't change. Women's rights shall not be infringed.

@SatanBurger And there’s a clearly outlined process for adding an amendment to the Constitution. It’s been done 26 or 26 times already.

@redredred Your interpretation was only adopted by the Supreme Court in 2008. If the Court can make a new interpretation in Roe v. Wade, it can revisit its interpretation of gun ownership. You should read the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia in the Heller v. DC decision. He makes it clear that gun ownership is not absolute and is subject to reasonable controls. Should California seek to use a similar approach to gun controls as the Texas abortion law, there is no reason it shouldn't be upheld.

@windinhishair Never read the Federalist Papers did you? No right is absolute, one cannot libel or slander despite the first amendment, one has limited fifth amendment rights in front of a grand jury. A warrant can void your fourth amendment rights.

Both the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed since they exist inherently and are not granted by the Constitution; only protected by the Constitution.

@redredred Does this apply to all arms? What other rights are inherent? And how is inherence determined? And are any duties inherent?

@redredred You didn't read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, did you? Or the Heller decision? Interesting that you allege you know more about them than Justice Scalia. Not surprising though, since you deal with talking points and obviously don't understand history.

If no right is absolute, then gun rights are not absolute. If Texas can do an end-around on abortion rights, then California and other states can do a similar end-around on gun rights. It really is that simple.

@redredred The 2nd amendment is anything but clearly outlined. So complicated is it the Supreme Court only chose to rule on it recently. The holding for Roe v. Wade states the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

And it can be reinterpreted. The US Constitution and its supporting documents were never intended to be rigid and unchangeable - they framers said as much. (Nor did they expect militias to continue - that was until there was a standing Continental army in place).

The Bible is thrown around all day long as protection against LGBTQ, the 'sanctity of marriage' and 'proof' that its followers are holier than you or me, and yet there's not a specific word that addresses any of it. Just because something's written down doesn't mean it's imbued with any kind of veracity, any more than patriotism can be found in a symbol hanging from a pole.

@Graylight what I said was clearly outlined was the Constitutional amendment process. Since you missed that, your interpretation of the second amendment seems questionable at best. My interpretation seems much closer to what the SCOTUS has ruled than the wishful interpretation the left usually wishes for.

@Graylight Methinks you need to tone up your intellect several notches while toning down the condescension. If you were as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be so pedantic. It's a telltale sign of intellectual insecurity. Nobody behaved that way at any of the several Ivy League universities I attended.

@ninalanyon read the constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Look for the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Look for a discussion of rights “…endowed by their creator…” that means those rights are inherent, that is, not granted by governments but rightly protected by this government.

@redredred So you have rights but no duties? Anyway, the US Constitution was written by human beings, the fact that it declares that something is god given doesn't make it so any more than some verse in the Bible that approves of slavery makes that right.

@ninalanyon first off, the duties of freedom are the responsibilities attendant upon each freedom. Free speech requires you to speak truth so far as you can know it. To keep and bear arms requires one to do so safely and responsibly. The Founders wrote our Constitution expecting people to behave rationally and sanely; it seems impossible to write one for idiots and criminals.

Second, when they wrote of a “creator” it’s really the sort of religion-neutral language that deists (as most of them were) would use. Whatever the source of humanity whether a god or nature, the human species is endowed with natural rights. The right to life means nothing without the means to protect that life, the right to liberty means nothing without the means to secure that liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness (originally the pursuit of property) means nothing without the means to defend that pursuit.

@redredred The right to bear arms does absolutely not mention wielding it "safely and responsibly."

Your understanding of the US Constitution is rudimentary at best. The Founding Fathers wrote it 255 years ago - they had no idea who they were writing it for.

@redredred As incredible as it might seem, the human species is not endowed with natural rights by their creator to own weapons of mass murder capable of killing large numbers of their fellow human beings quickly.

@Graylight your knowledge of the Founders and the Constitution is rudimentary at best,

James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”

Would you like a dozen more from other Founders?

@windinhishair Really, is there a Constitutional provision preventing the possession of fertilizer and diesel fuel? That was the substance that was used in the second largest mass murder in US history (OKC). How about a half gallon of gasoline, some nails and a match? That was used in the third largest mass murder in US history (Happy land social club) How about plane tickets and box cutters? Admittedly the founders didn’t know about jets but I see nothing preventing the tools of the largest mass murder in US history ( go on and guess)

@redredred I see you have steadfastly refused to read Scalia's majority opinion in the Heller v. DC case. That isn't surprising, since your mind is made up. There is no inalienable right to own guns of your choice, without any controls. There never has been, and never will be.

Which well-regulated militia did you say you belong to?

@windinhishair As I explained, and perhaps you need a grown up to explain it to you, in the second amendment there are two distinct cohorts of the population mentioned, the Militia, by inference subject to regulation and the People whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Regulate the Militia (if you can find one) all you like but recognize clearly that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Is that clear enough?

@redredred The Supreme Court disagrees with you, since there is no absolute right to gun ownership. But keep believing something false if it helps you justify your compensator.

And even you said "No right is absolute, one cannot libel or slander despite the first amendment, one has limited fifth amendment rights in front of a grand jury. A warrant can void your fourth amendment rights." On that you are correct. Rights have limits, and so do gun rights. The only issue is how far do rights extend and how can they be limited. The Court in 2008 ruled in one direction, and could easily rule in the opposite direction in the future, confining gun ownership to those weapons that could constitute a militia, as was the original intent.