comment: >
  
  That's the definition of political enemies.
context: Can you help me understand the other amendments on which we Americans all agree? I am pretty certain that our legal scholars spend day on and day out struggling with the interpretation of the law. Not one point in the Constitution is above debate. It is why we have the processes and protections we have.
  This is one of the greatest benefits and challenges with the system we established and the process we have followed for 246 years, give or take. It isn't easy and it isn't convenient. It isn't pretty, and it definitely is subject to being unfair but it is our way. >
  
  I think we have pretty broad agreement on the third amendment. But otherwise, I agree that the others are heavily debated. >
  
  There’s plenty of debate about it as well, mainly pertaining to who/what counts as a “soldier.” >
  
  I would say that's not true, just for example the first amendment, in Texas a citizen journalist was arrested for asking a police officer information, and then publishing that information.
  Many states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.
  The U.S. Senate even considered a bill that would've made it a crime to boycott Israel or settlements in the occupied territories. >
  
  It's worth mentioning that the US isn't exactly free from discussions about the exact boundaries of what the -other- amendments mean. We have discussions about what kind of behavior qualify as speech, what kinds of regulations infringe on speech, what kind of regulations constitute infringement on freedom of religion, what kind of information gathering constitutes a search, what circumstances evidence is admissible if obtained without a warrant, what kind of regulations constitute a "taking" and thus entitle someone to compensation, exactly what kind of punishments are "cruel and unusual", exactly how lousy a lawyer can be without denying the accused the right to representation at trial... you name it, there's a fuzzy boundary somewhere. We even had a third amendment case not too long ago!
  The reason that the 2nd Amendment gets as much press as it does, leaving aside the fact that it's very different from how most governments see the issue, is that there was an extended period in the US in which -no- cases dealing with the constitutionality of weapons law reached the Supreme Court. Between a single case about sawed-off shotguns in the 1930s and the Heller decision, there was nothing; no decisions, no footnotes, no opinions, no dicta, no dissents. The court simply never picked up those cases to begin with.
  US jurisprudence changed immensely in that time period. There were a lot of fundamental changes about what kinds of laws that the government could enforce, or could not enforce. So a lot of the activity you're seeing now is the effect of the court saying "yeah, since we applied a lot of these legal principles everywhere else, we probably oughta apply them to the right to bear arms too, huh?" But a lot of those principles cut directly across the policy that some people want - if you want to ban guns, saying "yes, state and local governments are bound by the 2nd amendment just like they're bound by the other amendments" is a massive "screw you!" issued by an unfriendly court.
  That's really the source of the disagreement. A lot of people believe that you don't have a right to own and carry arms, no matter what the language in the 2nd Amendment says, in the same way a lot of people believed that it was perfectly rational to discriminate against blacks despite the language in the 14th. >
  
  Ironically, there were no 2nd Amendment cases because it was just accepted as obvious that the amendment only had to do with protecting state militias because those are literally the first words of Amendment. That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia. It wasn't until 2008 that the court "discovered" the amendment actually protected an individual's right to weapons.
  That discovery was the culmination of a decades long propaganda campaign funded by the NRA and other right wing ideology factories (aka "think tanks"), themselves funded by gun manufacturers. They hired the best "Conservative" legal minds to effectively erase the whole "well regulated militia" stuff which might allow for laws that hurt the manufacturer's profit. This, combined with the paranoic and dystopian propaganda campaign designed to convince people that shadowy dark figures are coming for their guns and children, have been incredibly effective at changing the popular understanding of the amendment. >
  
  >That sawed off shotgun case ruling you mentioned completely dismissed the idea the amendment had to do with anything other than a well regulated militia.
  That's not true. It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia, but the Court in Miller did not wrestle with a collective right versus an individual right that the debate (now moot) about the Second Amendment centers on. >
  
  
  It linked a sort of test to a regulated militia
  
  The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the "collective right" argument. >
  
  > The idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are related to a well regulated militia is the entire basis for the "collective right" argument.
  Then it sounds like the collective right argument -- which is moot by now -- is on weak footing. 
  The test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all. 
  Well, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia. >
  
  
  The test spits out an answer. Ok. But an answer for whom? An individual or an entire, collective militia? Miller doesn't wrestle with this at all.  
  Well, maybe implicitly. The defendant was an individual, not a collective militia or the defendant as a member of a collective militia.
  
  Miller absolutely does wrestle with and answer the question: 
  "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." 
  This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find. 
  You're right that it's no longer good law, but my point was that this was the only legal precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, "discovered" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all. >
  
  >This is as clear an assertion that the right attaches to the weapon's relationship to the Militia rather than the individual as you will ever find.
  Conclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?
  In your quoted language, it says "guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The right for whom?
  The Court does not explicitly say. But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.
  >until Supreme Court, parroting NRA talking points, "discovered" that the founders didn't really mean that well-regulated militia stuff after all.
  Maybe you don't like Scalia's Originalism, but I found his textual analysis sound. >
  
  
  Conclusory. Typing this doesn't make it so. Like I said, the test is linked to a militia in Miller, but for whom is the answer?  
  In your quoted language, it says "guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The right for whom?
  
  My brother, I'm not making some kind of deduction. Typing it does make it so when the answer is right there in the text. The right applies "to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" as the court states unequivocally. 
  ​
  
  But the defendant is an individual, not XYZ Militia.
  
  Yes! Bingo! That's why the defendant LOST in Miller. You're answering your own questions at this point, but you need to at least bracket your pre-disposition towards the individual rights argument in order to comprehend what the court was doing here. >
  
  The 2nd amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791. It was not properly debated with the rest of the Constitution during the 1787 convention. 
  It is worth noting that the only military that was under command of the US government was the 1st regiment, which comprised of less than 400 regular soldiers in 1791. They routinely got assistance from local militias, which would make up the bulk of the troops.
  After multiple failed campaigns from 1787-1791, Congress voted to approve a larger, formal standing army for the defense of the country. So at the time of writing and ratification, it was heavily understood and even hoped that regular citizens would arm themselves for purposes of serving in a militia to buttress a weak central army.
  That is obviously no longer the case, as the US military is the most powerful military force in human history. Had Congress approved a stronger standing army before the adoption of the 2nd amendment, it is entirely possible it was not only not ratified but never even suggested in the first place. >
  
  Gotta disagree.
  For two reasons.
  First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.
  Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government. 
  I would argue that the Second Amendment should be repealed and replaced with a reasonable right to defend yourself and your home, and to hunt. >
  
  >First, southern states wanted to be able to form up militias to suppress slave revolts without asking permission from the government.
  >Second, the frontier settlers wanted to be able to defend themselves against attacks by Indians without first asking permission from the government.
  Read the Federalist Papers. The Founders were terrified of foreign influence and intervention (specifically from European empires) after the Revolutionary War. >
  
  Because gun control has always been about disarming perceived political enemies.
  That goes back to the original gun control laws limiting African Americans.   And that continues today.  Handguns are literally upwards of 90 percent of gun crime.  Yet political gun control debates are about rifles.  Because even in progressive constituencies handguns are popular. >
  
  Black people were not political enemies. Gun control legislation designed and implemented with the intent of limiting gun control by black people had nothing to do with their political power, because they had very little in some parts of the country, and zero political power in most of the country. 
  It was about racism, and the fear that black people would turn around and treat white people the way white people treated black people for centuries. Racism and fear-mongering, pure and simple.