Would just like a bipartisan bill that deals with gun shows, background checks, the intimidation involved with open carry.
How would handle clip(?)size? Is there any reason to have 30 rounds of ammunition in a clip?

some twice that. Henry, for example. 1885 technology. And a "big" tax on the clips is probably a non-starter, like the ink tax. And if the violent crime rate is lowering, why fix a non existent problem?

Both the letter and intent of the Second Amendment are widely misunderstood.

especially since the BoR does not give rights to individuals, it limits what the State can do.

I really don't feel like arguing this issue.

bill of rights?

and limit/deny the government's infringement upon those listed, and those that are not.

ETA: Welcome to DU!

Thanks for that link. Just finished reading it and she nailed it. Will keep this and send to others. Thanks again!

Criminals don't generally buy guns at FFLs and they avoid gun shows like the plague, at least according to a trio of criminologists.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=155885
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/studies/8357

IL's FOID is needed for ammo sales. In Canada, once an online seller verifies the PAL with the RCMP, the firearm comes to your door instead of our transfer system. In the Czech Republic, your FOID is also your defacto CCW.

I still maintain that single payer with mental health and dental will put a greater dent in suicides and spree killings than gun control. China's mental health system sucks, and they pay for it with Sandy Hook level mass stabbings.

Gang violence can be taken care of with prison reform, infrastructure repairs, etc.

A version at odds with all precedent.

A version unsupported by the actual wording.

A version that requires one to eliminate half of the original wording in order to support Scalia's fantasized original intent.

The one that says it supports an individual right?

A novel interpretation.

Good thing there are super pure progressives to keep us straight.

So tell me - when was that golden age in America when gun ownership was strictly tied to militia membership and the government banned private ownership? Can you show me when private gun ownership outside of militia service was illegal and rare?

When your Founders spoke of all men are created equal, were all men equal?

So where is all that precedence you say Heller went against? Doesn't really exist?

A creation that required Scalia to eliminate 1/2 of the Second Amendment.

And you avoided my question.

Did your Founders intend that all men be treated as equals? Or just white males of property?

But we have fixed it as we have steadily expanded the scope of civil rights. That's what Heller represents- the arc of American history bends towards more rights, not fewer. It was a true progressive ruling.

But at the expense of the Constitution.

It also led to an expansion of profit for the gun industry. The real NRA motivation.

Heller is very specific that the 2A allows strict regulation of guns. It did not expand the pool of potential gun owners. What was driving gun profits was the never-ending calls for gun bans. With Trump in office watch profits go down as the hysteria disappears.

The NRA is a lobbying group for the gun manufacturers. Their only goal is to increase gun sales.

And while Heller in theory allows for reasonable regulation, a right wing SCOTUS and generally right wing judiciary will not rule in favor of any regulation being reasonable.

Registration is legal and constitutional. Permits for concealed carry have survived legal attack. Where are all these pro- gun rulings you are talking about?

Open carry is being pushed in every venue. Your own response proves my point with the concealed carry point.

There is simply no real gun control movement in America. Has nothing to do with Heller - it is what most Americans want.

I've posed this question in the past to supporters of the collective interpretation of the 2nd, and yet not a one has bothered to reply. Why would that be?

was not found. If the Second Amendment was intended by the Founders and Framers to be a universal right, why was it restricted to white males? That question is at the heart of individual intent.

Membership is a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms by free citizens?

If gun owners insist on a universal right, why did the Founders and Framers exclude most of the population from this right? A question that you cannot answer without destroying the foundation of your argument.

because the founders certainly limited most of the population.

crystal clear to all but a few. The Bill of Rights protects individual rights - there can be no argument about that. That was the original intent of the BoR.

But not to others. Scalia found what he was determined to find, and ignored what he was determined to ignore. He was a hack, an activist Judge.

it has been part of our party platform for a long time. It is not a fringe idea - both our presidential candidates supported the notion that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. As did the former democratic President.

Here is the deal - Scalia made clear in Heller that most every gun regulation you want is perfectly constitutional. You need to stop using Heller as an excuse for the massive failure of the gun control movement. Right now it simply sounds like you are looking for excuses for your inability to rally widespread public support for your ideas.

US vs Jones?

Really now, I expected better of a progressive.

Or is this the NRA approved version that is on the NRA website?

the version supported by President Obama and both Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

The version that says the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

So tell me - is Bernie progressive enough for you? Because he agrees with me.

Hardly what I would call a fair and progressive debating practice.

You might wish to google search for the actual text and read it. It is a bit longer than your Scalia/NRA approved version.

Or Obama's, Hillary's and Bernie's positions on the 2A? Are they being deceitful or unfair? Do they support the NRA?

And why are you avoiding the question?

to the conversation. Their position is the same as the Democratic position. I support the Democratic position. Don't you?

Here is the actual text of the entire Amendment. No need to thank me with a heart.
I took the liberty of highlighting the part that you, Scalia, and the NRA omitted.

"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."

Let's not forget the Democratic party platform predates Heller.

And again, no need to thank me.

Still makes no difference. Historically, culturally and legally America has rejected your interpretation for hundreds of years. If it makes you feel better than good for you. At the end of the day nothing changes.

wonder why?

"These things shall not be infringed:

1. A well regulated Militia, because, you know, we need a free State, and that's the best way we know to keep it.

2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Duh. Why explain simple English?"

And I only used one comma.

And, per my response, I separated the clauses. Perhaps your modifier is in a different place than mine.

Perhaps you are correct.

the meaning may become a little clearer.

May the Force be with you.

...only white males from 18 to 45 should be able to own arms? (...and other things and take other actions? own real estate, vote, marry a woman...



Naming something as a human right prior to correcting the defect in who is part of the set of creatures called human does not mean that the right previously articulated is no longer a right. I can't even imagine pulling that out of my butt.




The "original intent" of the 2A was to protect and articulate the right not to limit it. If, one day in the distant future, a new species evolves and articulates a demand for the US to recognize and respect it as also having rights, I would hope those rights would include everything in the BoR.

Ownership of firearms by free citizens. I will accept as a reply ONLY one or more examples, or an acknowledgement that none exists. If you reply on any other way, I will have no choice but to assume that you can provide no examples or that you simple lack knowledge of the subject.

damaging your position.

Ownership of firearms by free citizens? Why can't you answer in the manner I have requested? What is an observer of this exchange left to think of you inability to do so?

Have not provided any evidence of a Federal court judgement which allows the complete prohibiting of ownership of firearms by free citizens who are NOT engaged in militia service. Now, you may continue to evade by claiming I am engaging in avoidance behavior, but my question to you was the first in this exchange and remains unanswered.

Or should I simply assume you have nothing?

My responses concerned Scalia's dishonest redaction of the Amendment so he could discover an Original meaning more to his liking. And the liking of the NRA.

When he effectively redacted the first clause by terming it merely prefatory.

And if so, we can have no real discussion.

An individual right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED to militia service. A majority, not just Scalia. Now, I am asking you to provide evidence that the opposite has been established as precedence on a Federal level.

Stevens:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
Breyer
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

“ Thus I here assume that one objective (but, as the majority concedes, ante, at 26, not the primary objective) of those who wrote the Second Amendment was to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense.”

There is a rich history of black freemen owning and using guns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/28/negroes-and-the-gun-slaves-fugitives-freemen-and-citizens/?utm_term=.eddf00f9bbb7

It was only post-civil war did we see concerted efforts to disarm blacks.

It created precedent, Heller did not overturn any precedent. No SCOTUS ever supported the "group rights" nonsense.
No it doesn't
No it doesn't, the original intent is an individual right protected against the State, just like the other BoR. It is not contingent on membership of a State militia, which is odd since police departments aren't covered under it.

But SCOTUS precedent, and the total absence of any SCOTUS precedent that conforms to Scalia's personal interpretation, does support a right linked to the necessity of a well-regulated militia. But that phrase, the first half of the Amendment, was redacted in Scalia's version. A first half that he dismissed as being merely prefatory.

In case it is not in your version, it is the part that begins "A well-regulated militia being....etc". And it well may be that in Texas, and some GOP states, that first half of the Amendment is missing. As to that well-regulated militia that Scalia ignored, that also is referred to, and elaborated on, in the Constitution.

was limited to males only. With the exception of the National Guard. So non-white males, and females are prohibited from possessing firearms.

Are you willing to agree that the original intent, so much loved by gun owners, excludes non-whites and females? Just as the original intent excluded non-whites and females from the franchise.

...was to insure that all of those considered full and free citizens be armed. Those that were able to vote should be able to own a gun.

Women, children, non-whites and some others were mostly looked upon as property. We've seen fit to correct that mistake in the law.

And the vote was limited to white males of property. As was possession of firearms.

So either you believe in respecting original intent or you do not.

That said, Scalia ignored 1/2 of the Amendment to arrive at his rather tortured interpretation. SO the so-called originalist Justice was actually nothing of the kind.

...a bit of voting reform? I mean if you really want to roll back the clock to where women, NAs and AAs can't vote, you should just do splendidly.

...is clearly expressed in the Preamble:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

Restrictions on the adopted Constitution to prevent, for one, abuses.

One of which Scalia dismissed as "merely prefatory" because to arrive at his self-described original intent he had to ignore 1/2 of the Amendment that was originally written by your Founders.

And because that dismissal of 1/2 of the Amendment resulted in an interpretation that supports what many gun owners already believed, it was regarded by them as correct. But it was a dismissal and a leap of something, I cannot say logic, but Scalia made a leap of illogic to arrive at his predetermined conclusion.

Here we go again. Here's an analogy:

"An informed electorate being essential to a healthy democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books and other written materials shall not be infringed."

Do you take that as meaning that only voters should be allowed to read?

If, a huge if, but if the Founders had intended to speak of an individual right, as separate from an individual in a well-regulated militia, the Amendment would have needed no reference to a militia at all.

As opposed to a perceived need.