The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Gun control runs into 2nd amendment problems
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:42 PM Author: translucent razzmatazz mediation If the Bill of Rights could be considered a sweetener to incentivize the states to ratify the Constitution in the 1780s, then there is a problem with outlawing semi-automatic weapons. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms was all about empowering the states against an oppressive central government, by giving individuals in the states the power to rise up against a standing army formed by the federal gov't. It wasn't about individuals having a right to guns to defend their personal property from thieves.
So when advocating for gun control, one would be well advised to address the question how can individuals rise up at the state level to fight against federal oppression if the standing army has access to automatic, semi-automatic, grenades, killer drones, etc. |
 |
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:44 PM Author: Splenetic cuckoldry psychic Why has nobody tried to make this point up to now? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438766) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:49 PM Author: translucent razzmatazz mediation Not sure, but the idea of individuals having the "natural right" to protect their personal property has a strong philosophical basis as well, rooted in John Locke's writings. It's just that he was writing a century earlier and Madison didn't have him in mind (for the most part) when drafting the Bill of Rights. Madison had more practical political goals in mind. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438800) |
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:46 PM Author: citrine institution the thing is, the 2nd amendment was written more than 200 years ago, when people just owned muskets. times have changed! similarly, the first amendment was written when we only had newspapers. Therefore, CNN, Twitter, etc. shouldn't be given freedom of press. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438779) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:48 PM Author: comical hairless idea he suggested doctorate Seems like a reasonable tradeoff actually (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438791) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:49 PM Author: citrine institution i would argue that CNN and social media have done far more damage to America than semi-automatic weapons (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438797) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:50 PM Author: Splenetic cuckoldry psychic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438804) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:50 PM Author: chocolate ratface (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438810) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:56 PM Author: lilac razzle-dazzle ape Yeah pretty sure we all take this stance and it's far from controversial (or should be) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438854) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:16 PM Author: hyperactive motley orchestra pit yarmulke (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438983) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:28 PM Author: Fragrant ungodly school bbw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35439048) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:47 PM Author: Crusty Stock Car Stage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35439133) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:52 PM Author: translucent razzmatazz mediation right, but the federal standing army only had "muskets" back then as well. It seems like there may be a stronger theoretical underpinning at work here that needs to be addressed. You can't just unzip these without a lot of work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438817) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:56 PM Author: citrine institution i just want to ban CNN, Facebook and Twitter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438855) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:50 PM Author: Bull headed site when was the last time someone used a 30-round magazine for any of the following:
1. Fighting off the government
2. Self defense
3. Hunting |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:54 PM Author: translucent razzmatazz mediation I get it, just trying to steer the conversation in a way that makes it most effective. We may have to convince the powers that be that states don't need to rise up against the federal government any more. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438842) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 4:57 PM Author: hilarious exciting hell patrolman the answer to all of those questions is every fucking day, shithead |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:12 PM Author: pale irradiated knife garrison exactly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438962) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:13 PM Author: Beady-eyed theatre gaming laptop 1. We don’t have to because we have them. :D
|
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:14 PM Author: chocolate ratface (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438972) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:06 PM Author: Umber narrow-minded den Is this a law board? Come on. How about this:
The bill of rights was not intended to be a restriction against what the states could do, only a restriction that applied to the federal government. For instance, in the late 1700's, some states had official "Church of [Virginia]s" that were established by the states, and that did not run afoul of the US Constitution establishment clause (the churches didn't last because they were a bad idea).
When the bill of rights was incorporated to apply to state governments after the 14th amendment, it was done incrementally and unevenly. Some amendments, like the 3rd amendment, were never formally incorporated to be a restriction on state action.
When the 2nd amendment was written, it only forbid the federal government from banning arms. This made sense, as it would be an obvious act of tyranny and overreach for the federal government in DC to take away the privately owned guns in South Carolina. However, the inverse is not true.
The 2nd amendment was not intended, at the time it was written, to be any sort of restriction against state governments from regulating gun ownership. It was assumed that state governments could do as they please on the issue.
Thus, it is a bastardized reading of the 2nd amendment to say that states can't ban whatever firearm they wish. The real argument here is the 14th amendment and the incorporation of the 2nd amendment against states, which if you believe that we are a nation of free peoples expressing our will through our states, it is a insult to the principles of freedom and the American Revolution that Florida can't ban AR-15's.
Conclusion: if the confederacy had won, Florida would be free to ban AR-15's without some distant tyrannical federal government using military force to prevent them from doing so. THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:10 PM Author: Umber narrow-minded den I'm self bumping. Come at me, shitlibs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438952) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:12 PM Author: translucent razzmatazz mediation um, how is any of this incompatible with what I said?
Or maybe this was meant for another poaster. |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:14 PM Author: Umber narrow-minded den Your argument focuses on the intent of the 2nd amendment, which I think misses the point. The real issue is how the 2nd amendment is applied against the states by virtue of the 14th amendment, which can be argued is totally wrong. The individual states should be free to pass gun laws as they see fit and it was a disaster to attempt to apply the 2nd A against the states. 14th amendment and its application is the problem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438976) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:27 PM Author: translucent razzmatazz mediation Your argument presupposes that states can't pass strong gun regulations on their own, which is false (e.g., CT has passed strict gun restrictions post-Sandy Hook).
I am saying that the federalist system in the US makes the gun control issue a thorny one and that rather than getting all incensed about why we can't just ban semi-automatic weapons outright, we need to look at the language that created the system we have and speak in that language to solve the problem. |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:32 PM Author: Umber narrow-minded den States are strongly restrained from what they can do with regard to restricting gun ownership by federal court decisions. While it is interesting to see what the original intention of the 2nd amendment, those intentions are not helpful as the 2nd amendment as it is interpreted today is far from what it was originally intended to be. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35439067) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:34 PM Author: translucent razzmatazz mediation This New York Times article doesn't articulate any of the restrictions that you are referring to, at least not to any significant extent - so I really don't get what you are babbling about.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/nyregion/florida-shooting-parkland-gun-control-connecticut.html |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:16 PM Author: Clear Curious New Version Station I'm actually one of relatively few ppl out there who thinks that Heller (holding that the 2nd Am grants an individual right to bear arms) was right and McDonald (2nd Am is incorporated to apply against the states) was wrong.
We exist though, bro. Posner's either one of us or was put in the position of pretending to be one post-Heller. |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:17 PM Author: Umber narrow-minded den (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35438990) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:25 PM Author: Bull headed site does the same analysis apply to the 1st amendment? if not, why the distinction? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35439032) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:29 PM Author: Umber narrow-minded den Absolutely. I think that many of the problems in this country were caused by US Constitution being reworked by the 14th amendment and New Deal commerce clause decisions. If American citizens could exercise their free will to govern themselves as they see fit through the vehicle of state governments, I think we'd all be better off.
There were plenty of warnings about the danger of an overreaching federal government located on the border of Maryland and Virginia. |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:26 PM Author: adventurous startled fanboi indirect expression this thread shows how dumb xoxo has gotten, especially for a self proclaimed board of "prestigious lawyers". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35439036) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2018 5:45 PM Author: comical hairless idea he suggested doctorate Expound (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3897716&forum_id=2#35439117) |