comment: >
  
  Coke can Thomas says that Anita Hill is a liar and the first clause doesn't matter.
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. >
  
  The bill of rights is clear.  The difficulty is transferring broad freedoms to modern times.  
  After the revolutionary war, there were privately owned warships.  Which were the pinnacle of military technology at the time.  The second amendment has to be toned down from that level of freedom, as no one wants SpaceX to build ICBMs. >
  
  
  as no one wants SpaceX to build ICBMs.
  
  An ICBM is basically a lifting body with reentry capability. So yeah, we absolutely want SpaceX to build those - that's their entire purpose.
  The whole space race was basically the US and Soviets showing off rocketry capabilities because a warhead that doesn't go where you want isn't worth anything.
  Welcome to the world of dual-use technology and why economic sanctions and nonproliferation efforts are so complex. >
  
  I'm not trying to split hairs, I was trying to point out dual-use. We want SpaceX to build and operate lifting bodies that can reenter, which only really differ from ICBMs in the payload. If your point is that we don't want SpaceX to have nuclear warheads to put on top of its lifters, sure, but that's a control of the warheads, not the rockets.
  And yeah, a nuke is "valuable" in a money sense, but in the context of the Space Race/Cold War/MAD, a massively inaccurate delivery vehicle can't operate as an effective deterrent and so is largely strategically worthless. That's more what I was trying to get across. >
  
  This question assumes that US citizens agree on the other Amendments. 
  Just some examples:
  10th and 14th Amendment- Is it a state issue or is an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment
  9th Amendment- A massive legal mind field no judge has ever wanted to use to base a decision on.
  1st Amendment- Should this be covered under the first Amendment or is it obscene under the Miller test. >
  
  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 right applies "to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" as the court states unequivocally.
  That's the "test", not whom it applies to. 
  >That's why the defendant LOST in Miller.
  The defendant lost because that person was an individual? That's pretty novel, and the Court does not say that...
  If the Court in Miller so clearly elucidated a collective right for a militia, it's awfully cagey and arcane about it. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  Many states have laws that ban state government agencies from hiring, contracting or entering into deals with businesses that boycott Israel.
  
  That's not a First Amendment issue. It would be to ban state government agencies from entering into deals with people just for advocating for a boycott though.
  But, business practices themselves are not protected speech.
  The government can say contractors can't hire marijuana users, but have to be mum on employees that advocate for legalization. >
  
  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. >
  
  Gun ownership assures us of our freedom from tyranny. One of the first measures enacted by tyrannical regimes e.g the Nazis was to ban private ownership of weapons  this keeps tyranny in check. Do you think that Nazi Germany declined to invade Switzerland because it was neutral, I have some news for you, Germany invaded more than one neutral country, but the swiss had a more difficult terrain combined with the fact that people have guns in their homes as a policy. Freedom ain't free. Governments must be kept in check by the people. Why is it that everyone trusts the government only untill the other guy wins. If you are against gun ownership for people, go buy a gun >
  
  Crazy you think people with guns stand much of a chance against modern military.  It's also nuts that the right wing that is so 2a crazy also supports the most authoritarian politicians.  What a suprise it can be when one of them gains too much power and decides the guns are now a threat to them.  Just like history. >
  
  Ever heard of Vietnam? >
  
  Not at all what we're talking about .  That was us against a military backed by the Chinese and Russia. >
  
  Compared to the US military, it should’ve been an easy win on paper. >
  
  Again, not at all the same as a bunch of guys with hunting rifles. >
  
  Do they have hunting rifles or “weapons of war.”  I’m confused. >
  
  How many in the US have weapons of war other then the military?  Drones are the game changer.  Combine them with NSA sophistication, and there won't be a lot of hiding places against the government if they mean business. >
  
  People seem to not realize that they meant "well regulated" in the sense that the militia would be able to be in effective shape to fight when needed.
  Basically this translates to sating "citizens should be capable of owning the same equipment as the nations military and be able to use it effectively when needed"
  Alot of people also don't realize that they may not be in the military but if they are able to fight they are considered to fall in what is called the "unorganized militia"
  These two things being forgotten or ignored are the reason people keep disagree on the 2nd amendment. They don't understand what it means in the eyes of our founding fathers, and they don't understand where they fully stand in this nation when it comes to these definitions.
  Long story short: People disagree because they put very little time and energy into thoughts that spew out their mouth. >
  
  Isn't it funny how people don't seem to know and understand that able bodied men from 18-45 are in fact members of an unorganized militia by US Code and can be pressed into service. >
  
  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. >
  
  That's the definition of political enemies. >
  
  How? Black people were not enemies of white people, and the issue had nothing to do with politics. The only way what I described could be the definition of “political enemies” is if we forget the meaning of both of those words and ascribe an entirely new definition when the two words are put together. >
  
  The Bill of Rights are restrictions on government, not a list of permissions for the government.
  You have to view the 2nd through that lens.
  If you really think the founders didn't believe in individual right to own firearms, it should be easy to produce their discussions on disarming the US population at the time. What you will find is the exact opposite. >
  
  
  Why cant Americans seem to agree on what the 2nd Amendment says
  
  Because we can't repeal it. Getting the congressional majority required to repeal the second amendment is basically impossible in our current government system and distribution of beliefs. You would need 2/3 of congress to agree to get rid of it. That's an impossible ask.
  So because we can't REPEAL it... we have to live under it. That means that progressives will lobby for regulation like national registration, background checks, taking guns from criminals and abusers, and up to outright bans on certain types of firearms or just banning firearms.
  The only way for such policies to work, is if we INTERPRET the 2nd amendment to mean that "firearm ownership can be regulated". The progressives stick to terms like, "well regulated militia" and various other limits put on things like "free speech"/etc.
  The conservatives, cling to the "shall not be infringed" and then we all meet in the middle to call each other names.
  
  Laws are interpreted. If they were objective and ontological.. we'd have computers handling court cases instead of judges. >
  
  The issue is that changing amendments to the constitution is prohibitively difficult.
  Those who think it is bad for citizens to have guns just *happen* to think that the 2nd amendment is about state armies.
  And those who think it is good for citizens to have guns just *happen* to think that the 2nd amendment is about citizen rights.
  The fact that there aren't many people who are inconsistent with those above statements shows that disagreeing about the definition is a proxy fight to alter the amendment outside of the established and prohibitive process defined in the constitution. >
  
  SCOTUS Justice Berger: "The gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." Source. >
  
  Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I dunno how much more clear it needs to be. If " the people" are the ones who form the militia. Also the founders were very clear and forward with the threat of government overreach and becoming tyrants hence the, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. And how would they do that? With guns. You don't think a tyrannical government is just going to say you know what your right we will just step down.  You won't ever get our guns. Ever. >
  
  They meant for everyone to have muskets cause bears and wolves and shit. It's debatable what they would've said with the available information of our time but to assume that you know they would have stood by 2A is bullshit...that they would stand by their wording of the second amendment even in the situation where firearms have become the leading cause of death for our children. There are 120 guns for every 100 people in America, all of them more powerful than they could imagine at the time. I'm not in favor of taking them away from lawful owners, but a semantic defense of the wording starts to seem pretty lame when our kids are scared they'll be shot for going to school and both the data and the events they represent prove that they should be. Nope, gotta go by the words people said 200 years ago! Well, we already regulate plenty of guns away from private citizens and we might decide to do AR's again, we will just have to see. 
  From the article, emphasis mine:
  "The previous analysis, which examined data through 2016, showed that firearm-related injuries were second only to motor vehicle crashes (both traffic-related and nontraffic-related) as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age. Since 2016, that gap has narrowed, and in 2020, firearm-related injuries became the leading cause of death in that age group (Figure 1). From 2019 to 2020, the relative increase in the rate of firearm-related deaths of all types (suicide, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined) among children and adolescents was 29.5% — more than twice as high as the relative increase in the general population. The increase was seen across most demographic characteristics and types of firearm-related death." >
  
  So the article is about children not adults so its inaccurate in the way you try to bunch adults and children together, heart disease and diseases are the leading cause of deaths, also the article was commissioned and written by anti gun lobby and their doctors just research the doctors political affiliations and you'll see. Regardless your opinion that the 2nd amendment is debatable is factually incorrect it's literally written on plain as day, subjective interpretation and word play changing definitions and all the other nonsense people try to do is imo treason its written very clearly and obfuscation of simple words is just a tactic. And so important the founders made it the second thing they wrote why not the second to last or last of they weren't sure because they knew it was important for citizens to defend themselves especially from government. Your argument doesn't make sense because it was the second thing they wrote so be sure they would stick to it today. The wording is clear it's you that want to change the meaning becuase your political bias.  Also since cars are were the leading cause according to your political buddies article should we ban cars??