Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bp92009 t1_iwehiy8 wrote

Reply to comment by eli_underhill in Seattle students planning walkout on Monday following Ingraham High shooting by greenhousecrtv

Again, I don't see anything about personal ownership of firearms being protected, because it did not exist outside of relating to a militia, until that right was invented in DC vs Heller.

If that right existed and was recognized by the courts, from 1788 - 2008, please let me know and link the court cases.

1

eli_underhill t1_iwehuna wrote

It didn’t have to go to court, it was clear in the wording of the 2nd amendment

0

bp92009 t1_iwem7qe wrote

Try again, it was previously able to be restricted, and laws implemented by states made no allusion to any personal ownership outside of a militia.

DC vs Heller the first to recognize that interpretation.

If you disagree, please provide citations as to what court case previously recognized personal ownership being the core point of the second amendment.

Laws were on the books that infringed on personal ownership, and the two cases I provided made no reference to any personal ownership, outside of those relating to a militia.

If it was clear in the wording, then why was the first part about militias even included, and why were other restrictions made by states prior to the decision allowed to stand prior.

1

eli_underhill t1_iwennyq wrote

You don’t get to just say “if the Supreme Court didn’t decide it, it’s not the law.”

Could we start arresting people who speak out against Joe Biden? It will be perfectly legal until the Supreme Court says it’s not, right? Or do you think that the 1st amendment is clear enough that you can’t arrest people for speaking out against their leader?

I still don’t understand why you think that something in the bill of rights is talking about giving power over the people, and not to the people, when every other part of it is giving people rights.

The beginning of the transcript for 1789 joint resolution of congress to amend the constitution said “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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

Key terms here are to prevent misconstruction and abuse of its powers, and to extend public confidence in the government. Do you really think after saying that, they’ll say that it’s the right of the government to keep and bear arms, or the right of the people? I’ll give you a hint, the second amendment says clearly “the right of the people.” How is “the right of the people” possibly misconstrued?

0